On June 29, 1972, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation, Pope Paul VI declared to the world, “From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God.” The pope was referencing the diabolical forces that had infiltrated the Church through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
Now a key objective of Vatican II was the empowerment of the laity, in keeping with its theme of “active participation of the faithful.” With the Council came the new definition of priesthood as The people of God. It saw the whole Church as one hierarchy or priesthood, but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank of this priesthood. What was proposed was the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.
“The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ.” (Lumen Gentium 10)
It is a well-known and documented fact that the agents of Communism began entering our Catholic seminaries as far back as the 30s for the purpose of destroying the Church from within. Over a thousand such agents had infiltrated the seminaries prior to 1940. The testimonies of ex-communists like Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson who had testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee more than confirm that these agents of the sickle and hammer had been building their forces against the Church with the intention of breaking in and indoctrinating the faithful with anti-Church principles.
Their plan was to first absorb Catholic philosophy and teaching in the seminaries so as to give them inside access to masterfully communicate and pull the Catholic hierarchy away from their traditional roots, so that they in turn would embrace revolutionary ideas and become pawns of ecclesial subversion. The Leninist “clenched fist” ideal would now be applied in a spiritual way where the “empowerment of the laity” would be a means of overthrowing the Church’s monarchical structure, so that a new sense of democracy and religious liberty would take precedence over the established rule of religion issuing from the Seat of Peter.
Hence we have the modern-day role of lay Eucharistic ministers — a role that supposedly empowers the faithful to perform the priestly function of giving Communion. Eucharistic ministers indeed have been empowered, but their empowerment is not from God. What we’re seeing today is Marxism in full swing. The insidious efforts of communists to infiltrate the Church are now manifest through this and other practices such as female lectors and lay liturgists. These role changes were part of a well-orchestrated plan to undermine the priesthood and bring about a spiritual revolution that would later ensue under the pretext of a “renewal.”
Bella Dodd said in the early 50s: “In the 1930s we put eleven-hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” Twelve years before Vatican II, she said, “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church.” She predicted that the changes they would implement would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.”
Dodd explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by communists. Her work as a communist was to give the Church a complex about its heritage by labeling “the Church of the past as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.”
“In the Mass, the words ‘Real Presence’ and ‘Transubstantiation’ must be deleted. We shall speak of ‘Meal’ and ‘Eucharist’ instead. We shall destroy the Offertory and play down the Consecration and, at the same time, we shall stress the part played by the people. In the Mass, as it is today, the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable. He appears to offer his Mass to the great Crucifix hanging over the ornate altar. We shall pull down the Crucifix, substitute a table for the altar, and turn it around so that the priest may assume a presidential function. The priest will speak to the people much more than before. In this manner the Mass will gradually cease to be regarded as an act of adoration to God, and will become a gathering and an act of human brotherhood.”
“Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the Age of the Laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses.”
Royal Order of Scotland in the United States. He addressed fellow initiates with the following:
“To the crowd we must say: we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, the God of the Christians [Jesus Christ], whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, his barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. Religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay.”– Albert Pike, as quoted in A. C. de la Rive: La Femme et l’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588.
Can we understand now why the Church today has been virtually overthrown by the post-conciliar revolution? Vatican II opened its doors and invited these agents of Satan to sit in on the Council and participate in the drafting of its documents. Or hadn’t it occurred to us why the 1964 Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecumenici (Article 48) commanded that the traditional prayer to St. Michael at the end of Mass be “suppressed”? Obviously the old devil didn’t want the faithful praying against him.
The same document (Article 91) states: “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.” This coincides with the memoirs of the above-mentioned agent who said, “We shall stress the part played by the people” and who complained that “the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable.”
There is no arguing that the faithful are called to have “active participation” in Christ, but this participation consists principally of silent meditation on the Passion and contemplation of the Sacred Mysteries, not in assuming priestly functions or engaging in liturgical busy-body activity. We are called to sanctify our souls and to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), which means we must respect Christ’s monarchical authority and not attempt to assume functions which we are not authorized to perform.
If the Catholic hierarchy would simply follow rules and regulations and keep with the Church’s 2000-year tradition of having only consecrated priests administer Communion, their household wouldn’t be in such a shambles today. If heresy and apostasy now abound, it’s because the hierarchy has lost confidence in the rule of tradition, fulfilling St. Paul’s prophecy: “There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but… will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (2 Timothy 4:3)
If priests would dump their modernist inventions and let down their nets the traditional way, they would again bring up a marvelous catch for Christ; but if they continue on their present path of change and “renewal,” they will continue laboring all night in the dark as they have since the Council.
If the Church today is largely ignorant of the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in his sanctuary, it is in no small part because of these socialist lay-empowerment movements through which the Eucharist has been profaned. The Eucharist is the very heart of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve, therefore the members of Christ are dead members if they will not adore His True Body in the manner commanded by Christ, namely, by receiving on the tongue and from a priest only.
It was not without reason that St. Basil declared Communion in the hand to be “a great fault.” St. Thomas Aquinas taught:
“Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica)
The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Church’s continuous teaching forbidding lay people from administering Communion.
“It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church… as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained.” – The Catechism of the Council of Trent
St. Paul warns that “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord… For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11: 27,29)
Hence it would be better never to receive Communion than to go up everyday in cafeteria fashion and receive from people who are not legitimately empowered to administer the Body of Christ. Though it has become a widely accepted “common-law” practice today, the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers at Mass is illicit in that it radically breaks with the Church’s 2000-year tradition.
The argument that Pope John Paul II sanctioned the use of Eucharistic ministers is itself suspect, since there is evidence that he opposed this practice. The following is from Redemptionis Sacramentum, an instruction issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship during his papacy on March 25, 2004.
“If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers [priests] for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.” (Article 157)
How is it that most Catholic parishes today are embroiled in this lay ministry program in spite of this and other like prohibitions? It’s because the tumor of Communism continues to spread its cancerous errors throughout the Church. The ugly hand of Communism has truly reached in to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.
Let us pray that the pope will finally consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that the red tumor can be eradicated and health can be restored to Christ’s Mystical Body.
Spot on!!
A BRIT
IN
BANGLADESH
And the Word was made Flesh
But does that really mesh
With authentic faith and dialogue today?
‘Cause at Eucharistic meal
Which is no big, bloody, deal
We smile and our mistakes are washed away.
We gather round the table
To hear a gospel fable
From Father Bob, the celebrant divine.
Never kneels he always stands
But he runs to shake your hands
Then he sits a lot, perhaps a weakened spine.
The ladies and the girls
Their ministry unfurls
A Eucharistic minister’s sensation.
With servers and the cantor
They have a playful banter
Then bread and wine it’s time for celebration.
As the people we all sing
But the bells they never ring
For they took away the Words that made His Flesh…
For a Corpus? That’s too rough
There’s no need for violent stuff
That’s as welcomed as a Brit in Bangladesh!
Oh boy. Communism has failed all over the world. The Cold War is over. People miss the comforting old Cold War, so they try to see communism everywhere.
Lay eucharistic ministers is a Marxist plot? This is beyond ridiculous.
The Cold War is over alright…. but communism won.
No, it didn’t. And it is a disservice to those who suffered under communism to compare that system to lay eucharistic ministers.
I am 76 years old and I remember at twelve going to a funeral with my mother for my grandmother. Standing outside of the church I questioned my mom about several men standing around another man. My mother told me that it was a cousin who was with communist party USA and my grandmother had said many rosaries for him. Several years later my mom related that the cousin went back to the church and told the FBI all he knew about the communist party. Part of which was the fact about the seminaries being infiltrated. So I would not put anything beyond possible.
Mary, thank you for this beautiful story of how your grandmother’s many Rosaries got your cousin back into the Church.
We are not altogether helpless in combating the Red menace. Our Blessed Mother has shown us how to fight it with her own weapon, the Rosary. And in the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Thanks again and God bless.
Communism championed the following:
Divorce
Contraception
Abortion
Evolution
Promiscuity of any sort whatsoever
State control over the economy
State control over healthcare
State control over education
Atheism
Materialism
Feminism
Ugly modern art
This stuff is all over the US, Canada and western Europe. This was the goal of the communists and this is what we have now here in the west. The Cold War seems to have been fought mostly in the realm of ideology and the ideology of our elites is Marxist whether they realize it or not.
As far as the communists inventing laypeople giving out Holy Communion at Mass, this is the first I’ve heard of this theory but it makes sense given Bella Dodd’s revelation among other things.
Apply cold water to burned area, Jenni.
The fact that we live in an essentially materialist atheist nation with a Communist in the White House, and empty-headed Catholics who voted him in seems to argue against your statement.
I won’t write the details why. I just say, YES, the communism is alive. I lived through it, and I thought I escaped it. Over thirty years later, I am living my personal déjà vu. Hence, if you know nothing about it, please, don’t state your opinion.
The book by Bella Dodd.Into the Darkness may change your mind.You can download for free
The USSR collapsed, but Communism was never about one nation against another. The USSR was the host of the virus, and quickly passed it on. It died, but the virus propagates.
Communism is a long term global movement and it has succeeded in destroying the institutions of the West.
The Communist regime in Russia has never been stronger. If people today believe that Communism collapsed, it only shows the great power that Russia now exerts over the western mind. If someone came to you with the power of suggestion and commanded you, saying, “2 + 2= 6 and the earth is square,” and you said , “yes sir, I believe you,” would it not demonstrate the great power he has over your mind?
Thumbs up.
What does it take to effect a change in this insidious practice which has overtaken entire dioceses, and entire countries? In this area of Canada the “lay Eucharistic minister” can be found at every Mass no matter how few attendees. The “lay Eucharistic minister” is promoted as a kind of vocation in itself on archdiocesan publications. Apart from a tiny number of traditional Catholics, who don’t even attend mainstream Masses anyway, there is not a whisper of opposition, since the bishops have long since decreed that everyone must accept the status quo. If we are not bishops or priests, what can possibly be done? Almost nothing it seems.
Receive Our Lord on the tongue by a Priest. As a lay person, that is what we can and must do,,, Kyrie eleison…
I always say, if enough people line up to the priest to receive and ignore the “special ministers” including those with chalices, the priesthood will get message. Where there is a will, there is a way.
But there aren’t enough people who would have any wish to do that.
And if the few of us who actually believe that did swap to the other side, others would swap to the “special ministers” side to keep the numbers equal.
And the number is being reduced every day as all the children are taught is that Communion should be received in the hand.
The CC I attend on Sunday acquired a kneeler about two years ago as a gift from an enclosed Order of Priests, and that is what I head for along with at least a third of a very large congregation. I note the number of young people who also avail of this facility. The cost of offering this alternative to standing in every CC could not be great – part of the Mass collection could provide a couple. Our Parish Priests must be urged to take the plunge and do it.
Unfortunately, you’re right :'(
To speak and set a good example.
What was proposed was the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy. (My emphasis)
*
Your misunderstanding and your error, not the Church’s. Ecumenical Councils of which Vatican II is one are infallible i.e. exempted from or immunity from liability to error.
*
Cf. the Church as a kingdom of priests & participation in the priesthood of Christ, CCC 1546; the Church as a priestly people, CCC 784, 941, 1591, 1119; common priesthood of the baptized, CCC 1141, 1143, 1268, 1273, 1546-47; meaning of the word priest, CCC 1554; the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, CCC 1547. And from scripture 1 Pt 2:5 & 9 and Rev 1:6; 5:10; and 20:6.
Except Vatican II never defined itself as a dogmatic Council, but strictly a pastoral one in which no dogmas were specifically defined. Its documents were deliberately full of obfuscations, innovations and compromises to satisfy the Modernist heresies. The current Catechism cannot be trusted when it references Vatican II documents.
1) Dogmas = revealed truths which have been formally defined or proposed by the Church.
2) Not all revealed truths are dogmas, whilst all dogmas are revealed truths. E.g. Mary was conceived without sin or assumed in heaven or that the Pope is infallible when teaching ex-cathedra, etc., were all revealed truths before they were dogmas.
3) Catholic Teaching and Tradition terms councils neither as “dogmatic councils” nor what some say (you?) are their opposite “pastoral councils”; there are Ecumenical Councils and Vatican II is the 21st and the latest.
4) It is Church teaching that Ecumenical Councils under a pope are infallible.
Conclusion:
It is said that when one truth of faith is denied, the denial of the rest soon follows.
Either Ecumenical Councils are infallible or they are not. And if one is not, then how can we be sure that the others were infallible?
Endnote:
If Ecumenical are infallible as the Church teaches, then they by must have to be pastoral. If Vatican II was not infallible as some say (you?), then by must it was NOT pastoral if they say it did what they say it did, i.e., teach error, unless “pastoral” is synonymous with “error” or “unfaithfulness to Christ or Church Teaching/Doctrine or practice”. And is this not how we have come to understand the word “pastoral” from the innovations by the innovators?
Gaudium et Spes
“§82. It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement. This goal, or course, requires the establishment of a universally acknowledged public authority vested with the effective power to ensure security for all,….”
So do you really believe it is the job of the Catholic Church to promote a “universal public authority” vested with all “effective power” to “ensure security” ??? This is a prime example of an error and an innovation of Vatican II. This is not any part of the Catholic Faith , and never was taught by Jesus or the Fathers, and is no where to be found in either Scripture or Tradition, so it is the right of the Catholic faithful to utterly reject such communist inspired nonsense.
Pope Paul VI answers your comment – when he made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966
So it seems His Holiness Pope Paul VI was of the opinion that Vatican II was pastoral in nature (which itself was an innovation) and carefully avoided proclaiming any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility. So you see, whereas my opinion carrys little weight, I think the Pope that oversaw the Council should very well know what he was talking about.
Church’s competency is faith & morals. That is what we believe and how we are to act in accordance with what we believe [or faith lived].
*
So it seems His Holiness Pope Paul VI was of the opinion that Vatican II was pastoral in nature (which itself was an innovation) Precisely the point and my point and no, I do not say that your opinion carries little weight, only that your opinion and that of the pope are not what the Church teaches or says about Ecumenical Councils. The false dichotomy between pastoral and doctrinal is from the innovators.
*
And if you say that VII was not infallible whilst the Church teaches that Ecumenical Councils under a pope are infallible, then even less so can you assert that the public comments in an audience on the said council by Bl. Paul VI can be infallible given that the Church has infallibly taught that the pope is guaranteed infallibility only when he teaches ex-cathedra under the conditions of Vatican I Council.
Ecumenical Councils are not strictly speaking infallible. Their pronouncements of solemn dogmatic definitions is infallible, not the entirety of the work. Otherwise there would be no debate or discussion in the council. The Council isn’t the documents released, but the gathering itself. If the Council makes no solemn dogmatic definitions, then nothing that Council did is guarded by the mark of infallibility. If it does, then those definitions, even if never written, are still dogmatic, binding, and infallible.
You are correct that when a Council makes such a definition in regards to matters of faith and morals, thus adding that definition to the teaching of the Church, then indeed it is infallible, because it is those things that the Church actually teaches. The Second Vatican Council did not actually teach, definitively, anything. It provided a wide array of pastoral suggestions but failed to make any definitions, therefore did not authoritatively teach.
It is the Pope who marks these councils with infallibility because it is the bishops in union with the Pope who make up the teaching Magisterium of the Church. If the Pope does not approve and thus mark the dogmatic definitions of the Council as dogmatic (and thus infallible) then these things are not dogmatic. Pope Paul VI, who presided over most of the Council and finally approved all of the documents, himself said that the Council made no solemn dogmatic definitions. He is the one person with the competent authority to do so. Therefore if he says there are no solemn dogmatic definitions (which he said) then there is nothing infallible contained within the documents, and thus can contain errors.
This is a little beyond Ecclesiology 101 so it is understandable if you did not know. There is also an incredibly awful understanding of ecclesiology, not to mention general catechesis, today, so things are often taught incompletely. What you have said is widely taught today and, while true, leaves out some important clarifications. As an aside, but related to the discussed topic, the Catechism was also never declared infallible, so, while it is indeed a good norm for teaching the faith, it is not protected from error.
This discussion thread started with this:
Now please answer whether this pertains to faith and morals and if it is a teaching. And since we are on Dogmatic [hmmm …] Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium how about say its Ch 8 The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in Mystery of Christ and the Church. Is is of faith and morals? Is it teaching?
*
You talked of Ecclesiology 101, setting aside your condescending tone, how is it you failed to grasp Penny Catechism 100 in my comment above, i.e. The Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both. The Church teaches infallibly as to faith or morals all her doctrines, all the revealed truths deposited with her, some of which are dogmas, which are revealed truths which have been formally defined or proposed by the Church. You are mistaken to think that the Church is only infallible when she proposes and/or teaches only dogmas.
*
On the Catechism of the Catholic Church, please read Apostolic Constitution Apostolic Constitution “Fidei Depositum,” on the Publication of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” Prepared Following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council | John Paul II, 11 October 1992.
*
The Church’s infallibility CCC 889-91; 418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I:DS 3074.
Is it regarding faith and morals? Yes it is. Is it a teaching? Yes it is *A* teaching, but not *THE* teaching of the church. As I stated above, and as was indicated by Paul VI, and is a part of the teaching of the Church is that only Solemn Dogmatic Definitions of Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Any random teaching contained within the documents is not infallible. Only solemn definitions. And, as we have seen, Vatican II has none.
Regarding the two kinds of priesthood… There are two distinct priesthoods we’re talking about that are NOT part of one hierarchy. The clerical state of the ordained is distinct in that it is according to the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood of the baptized is a common sort of priesthood, of the kind that God had originally intended all of Israel in the OT to partake of. I don’t have the space in comment to discuss the differences but there are probably books you can find on the subject.
There are two distinct priesthoods we’re talking about that are NOT part of one hierarchy. That is what the author of the article and you say not what LG says even from the plain reading of the words, nor what the Church teaches, and I have referenced copiuous CCC paragraphs.
Ok, you obviously have an axe to grind and I’m not gonna play. The whole reason I entered this particular discussion was to clarify under what conditions an Ecumenical Council is infallible an I did. You then shifted things back to the topic of priesthood and I answered your question. And now you’re back to your “Lumen Gentium and the Catechism say this” in complete disregard of what was said before about V2 not being doctrinal. It should be noted that the CCC basically just restates what V2 says in many cases.
I also like how you edited your previous comment after I responded, which makes me look like I wasn’t going to address over half of what you said.
I want to clarify when I said “ecclesiology 101” I was specifically saying that what we’re talking about is NOT the basics and so it’s fine and understandable you don’t know. I apologize if it came off condescending as that’s not my intention at all!
So, anyways, I’m not gonna play this game. You can find another whetstone to grind that axe on.
EDIT: To simplify… The point I and the article and many other people are making is this… Vatican II is wrong here… And in many other places.
Noting that that you have been shown to be in error yet have failed to acknowledge your error regarding your misstating and misinterpretation of LG 10
*
Ok, you obviously have an axe to grind and I’m not gonna play. You are the one who interjected yourself in this discussion thread.
*
I appreaciate the clarification and apology.
*
This is sheer madness. How can a council not be doctrinal [doctrine simply means “teaching”] when you concede the Council taught and taught on faith and morals [whether it taught error – which I assert it can’t, or not is irrelevant]? That it did not define dogma, I have always conceded that, nevertheless, the council taught on faith and morals!.
*
Cf. Padre Pio The Priest – His Mass
Same can be said about St. Josemaría, founder of Opus Dei.
*
I’d rather stick with the Church and her saints.
*
PS There is nothing underhand in me going back to re-edit a comment posted. Sometime it is for grammar, other times it is for better articulation, while at other times it is formatting, whilst the gist of the argument is retained.
I said I’m not going to play this game. So I’m not playing it. Let’s just unite in our desire for a holy church and pray for one another. I know I need your prayers, and I trust my prayers will benefit you too.
There was nothing “pastoral” about Vatican II. Obfuscating documents and misleading souls are not pastoral. I realize that “pastoral” was just Cdl. Ratzinger’s way of saying non-dogmatic but perhaps he could have found a better word. But I agree entirely with what he said, i.e., that we shouldn’t turn Vatican II into a “super-dogma” that supersedes everything else.
Feminism has always been at the forefront of Communist ideology – go to any “Women’s Studies” program at any American college and they openly quote Marx and Lenin. ( yet even the brutal Stalin had to suspend abortion in Russia because he saw the poisonous effect on the population). In today’s katholic churches in America, women run the whole show,,, from altar girls to even giving homilies and communion. And of course the chanceries have to pander to their “women’s ministries.” Feminism and its evil twin homosexuality will destroy any country and any church and the modernist church is full steam ahead on both fronts. The rulers of Russia knew (and still know ) this and always have used both to weaken the resolve of their enemies.
MARXIST FEMINISM’S RUINED LIVES
The horror I witnessed inside the women’s “liberation” movement.
September 1, 2014 Mallory Millett
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett
AMERICAN THINKER February 24, 2004
The Left’s War on the Family by Thomas S. Garlinghouse
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/02/the_lefts_war_on_the_family.html
Marx, Engels, and the Abolition of the Family
by Richard Weikart, History of European Ideas Vol.18 No5 pp 657-172 . Pergamon 1994
Feminist are Useful idiots
https://youtu.be/vLqHv0xgOlc
Mr. Poulin-
Wow. Thank you for all the links and references. Honestly. Thank you very much for sharing all this information. With the exception of the book of course, I read each of the articles and watched the entire interview with Mr. Bezmenov. I found all of it very good, very informative. The AS article, although twelve years old now, insightfully identifies the obvious bankruptcy of the Leftist program for the family. And Bezmenov is simply fantastic. Wow. And what an intellect! I had no idea the Communists had made such inroads in our country. Or that it was so very well planned out in advance. And of course I thought immediately of Obama, the quintessential ‘Columbia Communist’ himself…as our President for almost eight years now. I would literally give a thousand dollars to dig up Mr. Bezmenov and get his reaction to Obama being elected – twice – to the office of President of the U.S. He would probably be left utterly speechless at such an unbelievable development. And, finally, Mallory Millett. Just an outstanding article. I love hearing from people like Bezmenov and Millett who were – for years, decades – on the “other side”. They have so much valuable information for the rest of us! My goodness. To listen to them is priceless because they are, in many ways, “the horse’s mouth”. Or least they themselves heard it directly from the horse’s mouth. Priceless information for those who seek the truth about what is happening in our society and not merely the surface nonsense. I am about to print that Millett article from FrontPage and give it to my 17 yo daughter to read. Sadly, without saying too much, let’s just say the communist and feminist ‘game plan’ worked very well on me personally and so I was a pretty ineffectual father. And now I have a feminist for a daughter. I foolishly followed after the shiny objects dangled before me and “took the bait”. Meanwhile, while I neglected her, my little girl was being indoctrinated by hardcore feminists online. And has bought into much of their nonsense. But that’s another story altogether.
All that to say, again, thank you for sharing. The truth is always helpful.
You are very welcome – please share as much as possible. I too had to be guided to see what was right in front of me. I didn’t make the connection as it applies to the Church, but one can see the destruction of the heirarchical structure, the male priesthood as well as the sacraments and the moral order. One can see the over-emphasis of “social justice” rather than spiritual welfare. One can see the over-emphasis of female virtues in the dampening of criticism of Islam by political correctness, (which is simply a Marxist shaming technique.) One can see the over-emphasis on God’s mercy, rather than on His righteous justice. I too used to smirk at those warning of communist influences, provocation and infiltration as a bunch of nut cases, but now I can see it is true.
Thank you, Mike for your information. Today, as i browse “FLORIDA CATHOLIC” newspaper’s current monthly addition put out by the Diocese of Orlandlo, the front page article is mind numbing. Written by: Junno Arocho Esteves, for Catholic News Service, Titled: POPE: Care For Creation could be new work of mercy. yes, that is what i said, PF is looking to add Earth and Care for Creation a new work of mercy. unbelievable for me! just thought you might want to know.
Mercy can only be shared with another living being. This is simply earth-mother-goddess paganism in disguise, a symptom of how sick the VII cult is.
Thank you for those comments. I agree. Amen Brother!
I’m glad you woke up. It’s hard to keep shaking Catholics out of their slumber. Can we wake anybody else up??? Kyrie eleison. .
I added the link to the Weikhart paper above
a pdf file copy of Marx, Engels, and the Abolition of the Family by Richard Weikart can be obtained at:
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf
THE
ELEPHANT
IN
THE
LIVING
ROOM
“…from the womb before the day star I begot thee. The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.”
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
I lead all down
The aisle.
I see my son
But twice a year
He prays and studies
Hours
In cassock-black
Men laugh and jeer
Though mocking
Just empowers.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
And loyal
I’ll dance awhile.
Empowers him
To pray say yes
Receive and be
Anointed
These other Christs lay hands
And bless
Melchisedech
Appointed.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
“Royal priesthood”
Rank and file.
Through Masses, rosaries
Teary eyes
If Christ calls all
My boys
They’ll go but not
Support your lies
A meal with lots
Of noise.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
We’re having fun
Just smile.
Three years he’s slaved
Four more to go
Each year he’s
Farther away
And that’s so we
Can learn and know
His life for Christ
He’ll lay.
I’m Eucharistic
Sinister
At Mass I dress
In style
And all can be a minister
Diabolically
Disorienting
To beguile!
I wonder how many are in the highest levels or how many have been trained by these evil men? By the State of the Church I would say that these men and their students are all over the place. Lord protect Your Bride!!! Holy Mother pray for us!
Liberation theology was invented by the Communists. Liberation theology took of in South America. Our Pope is from South America. He seemed to like the Hammer and Sickle crucifix he was given… I’ll leave the conclusions to the reader…
Ask PF about that.
A little bread and wine does no harm.
Now start being joyful already.
Sadly, the Holy Communion Queue, is like an Hors D’oeuvres Line, with Holy Communion treated as if a Snack.
Now Standing for Holy Communion, is said to be following, Allegedly Byzantine Rite Practice, but, while Byzantine Catholics do stand, One receives both Body & Blood via Holy Communion Spoon from The Priest, not from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
“Holy Communion treated as if a Snack”
No it isn’t. Where are you going to church that people treat it that way?
How many people check their hands for particles after receiving on the hand I know I never did some even dust their hands i’ve seen ladies” purify” the vessels in a sink with running water and scrubbing the inside of a glass chalice (or cup as she called it) and just turned a blind eye. The cure is the TLM. I started attending Saturday mornings and after a month or so and seeing the contrast I could not take it anymore I spoke out I stopped being an emhc and even though I still attend the NO on Sunday with my family I only receive from the priest and on my knees
I unfortunately attend a NO Church, but do attend the TLM when I can, which is increasing harder to now since I am more “involved” in my parish due to be a candidate for the Seminary. I am expected to fulfil certain “ministries” now that I am being put forward for the Priesthood. So far I have been made Lector, Altar Boy and now I am going to be made an “Extraordinary Minister”. I have massive reservations about touching the Sacred Body even though I receive on the tongue myself and would never put Our Lord in harms way. Perhaps, if my Priest and Spiritual Director insist on me becoming such a thing, I would only do it providing that I wear white gloves that some altar boys wear so that my unconsecrated fingers don’t touch the Sacred Species. But, I am not sure whether a) that is permitted, b) if it would be a further abuse of Our Lord or not. Mind you, the “Extraordinary Ministers” at my Parish all seem to be very reverent with the Blessed Sacrament and keep the fingers they have touched the Hosts with together so not to touch anything else, and purify their fingers after the Blessed Sacrament is put into the Tabernacle (since my Priest uses the reserved Hosts from the Tabernacle at Mass rather than consecrating a ton of new Hosts like the NO proscribes!).
Another point is that although my Parish has quite a few “EM’s”, not all of them actually fulfil what is expected of them, such as taking Communion to the sick. I’ve been advised I would be serving the immediate area by the Church since there’s quite a few elderly Parishioners who can’t get to Mass. On top of that, my Priest is nearing retirement and has health problems, so things are becoming increasingly difficult. I don’t want to seem unhelpful, but at the same time I don’t want to jeopardise my soul my defiling the Sacred Host.
But I suppose I should hand all my worries to the Lord and say: Jesus, I trust in You!
God Bless.
Don’t do it, Mark. A comment made by a holy Tridentine priest during his sermon many years ago comes to mind: “Dearly beloved, you don’t have to go to hell for anyone.” The only “purifying” of fingers that will make one eligible to administer the Host is the purification he receives when he is annointed a priest; nothing else suffices.
Mark, you should go to the FSSP Seminary in Denton, Nebraska (Lincoln Diocese). It is only about 50 miles from where I live. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter produces well educated, devout and confident priests. You should at least call and inquire about the FSSP Seminary, called Our Lady of Guadalupe, near Lincoln Nebraska, in the small town of Denton. A few of my friends have sons who are now FSSP priests from that seminary.
Lincoln Diocese is the best of Catholic world. Wish the FSSP priests come to Orlando Florida.
I agree with 1d2a – DON’T DO IT. As you know, I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic. When I was in my senior year at university, some of my friends said to me: “Margaret, you’re so pious, so reverent! You’d make a great Eucharistic minister!” So being a good guinea pig. I went through training and became a Eucharistic minister. Never mind that in our Church, a laywoman isn’t supposed to touch the Sacred Species. Never mind that I had read Memoriale Domini, the instruction of Pope Paul VI on the 7 conditions required before giving Communion in the hand. I went against my conscience because I was afraid of what others would think of me.
I was a Eucharistic minister of for about 3-4 weeks. My last time as an EM was October 10, 1993.
For 12 years and 5 days I had the worst temptations against the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. The priests who heard my confessions tried to help me. Every time I went to Liturgy and and said: “I believe, O Lord, and profess…” (the prayer before Holy Communion), i would feel like a liar. Little did I know that by going to Liturgy, I was practicing the fifth Rule of the First Week of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola: “In time of desolation, never make a change.”.
On October 15, 2005 (the Feast of St. Teresa of Avila on the Latin calendar), God delivered me. I can’t explain it – all I can say is that God delivered me.
I strongly suggest that you get “The Truth about Communion in the Hand” by John Vennari. It was available from Oltyn Library Services. Hopefully they still have it.
Sound like you want more….
Look into FSSP, Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest or Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem. All three orders are dedicated to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Perhaps also consider the Canons Regular of St John Cantius in Chicago, they are dedicated to restoring the sacred, and look to celebrate the NO properly as well as TLM. Or move to a diocese like Lincoln NE or Charlotte NC or one with a good bishop like Morlino. ***You shouldn’t have to compromise your soul and faith to follow your vocation. *** God doesn’t work like that
That’s funny. Bishop Schneider, who grew up in the Soviet Union, received his first communion clandestinely, and has the unique honor of having had a beatified martyr (Soviet Gulag) for his family’s priest, absolutely describes it this way.
This video was intended for something else, but it makes the salient points – both about the loss of particles and Eucharist treated as a snack. Schneider’s cameo is important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4oaNrHJtQ
At most every church where this is practiced. Granted, there are some who receive this way that are sincere, but there is always a number of them who treat the reception of Holy Communion as some sort of formality. Many believe it’s just a ‘holy meal’ or symbol of our unity. That all spells ‘snack.”
People who discourage kneeling are not doing so in order to respect the tradition of standing in the East, because these same people often encourage things like altar girls and communion in the hand- two practices that are not found in the Byzantine Rite. Kneeling reminds us that we are truly dependent on God, that he is truly our Lord. We are not Jesus’ equal. He is better than we are in every way, and some people just can’t stand that.
I read somewhere that the devil appeared to the early saints without knees.
Since the Enemy is a fallen angel, he wouldn’t have knees.
One Philippine priest said during a healing services that you won’t have any problem with your knees if you kneel and pray since God would like you to be able to talk and show deep reverence to Him. Every knee shall bend!
Most EUs indeed secretly just like those feminists want attention, respect; want to be praised as devout, moral Catholic that’s why they take any chance when the Church changes. A majority of cardinals, bishops and priests are evil agents betraying God and allow that happened and they defend and excuse that it is permitted. No way to get things reverse back to tradition. Keep fighting and wait for Jesus coming. He will cleanse it because He founded this Church.
In the Maronite Catholic Rite they stand during the consecration, this is their tradition, and they stand while receiving, going up in a queue as you call it, but Holy Communion is always received from a priest, and by necessity on the tongue because he intincts the host in the Precious Blood first.
While I was speaking about the Roman Latin Rite, I am aware of the Various Practices, especially in The Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches. I also know about the Holy Communion by Intinction & the Formal Sign of Peace, which the Roman Latin Rite uses but not using the formality of your Particular Catholic Church.
Hi. I didn’t assume you didn’t know these things. I just commented because other people might not know that the Maronite rite is another Catholic rite that doesn’t have EMHCs, and might find it interesting too. 😉 I’m not a Maronite, by the way.
It is sad to witness this.
My UK Diocese [Salford] has the double honour of i). having no Permanent Deacons; ii). only one Sunday TLM. [one SSPX in addition] It is now. on the basis of a shortage of priests, to close parishes on an wholesale basis. Their answer to institute a progamme for the recruitment to the Permanent Diaconate, and, have the remaining parishes laity managed and controlled. Three immediately adjacent diocese have enlisted ICKSP and FSSP to assist with their problems, but not Salford, although challenged regarding the same – including allowing SSPX to acquire a ‘redundant’ church [on the basis they no longer appear top be anathema – per Franciscus!]. Some years ago a Scottish bishop [ex seminary rector!] looked to a future, with glee, of a laity led church. I see the Salford formula as but a short step to that laity led church, with the clergy as secondary thereto.
In many places in the US it is already led by laity, from a practical sense. Most diocese’ have a similar trend and so I’ll use my own as my example.
Priests here are assigned to a parish for 6 year “terms.” At the end of the 6 years they are allowed to request an additional 6 years which is almost universally granted. In some cases a pastor is moved before that time for some reason or another, but generally that’s the case. In addition to the pastor and any associate priest there, the parish is led by the “parish council” which is chaired by the pastor and filled with lay people. In many cases, if a pastor begins making decisions and moving things in a certain direction and the council doesn’t like it, they often do whatever they can to frustrate him saying, in essence “He’s only here for 6 years. We’ll just wait him out.” So the real power in the parish is not the priest, but the laity. And because of the power over money that the parish council, the pastor has to acquiesce to the councils demands. If the pastor doesn’t, then the council goes to the (arch)diocese and the diocesan officials ALWAYS side with the lay council, because, again, they have the money.
Now, of course, this isn’t an argument against the laity being involved in the work of the parish, as they should be, but it shows the control over the parish and the work of the church within that parish that the laity has, effectively creating a laity-led church. Just consider this: If priests were moved from parish to parish every 6-12 years, would St. John Vianney have been able to be the Cure of Ars? Would he have been named a saint and the patron saint of priests? And with the current process of moving priests that often, can any priest truly follow his example?
Gratias for info!
In Germany where there exists a national church tax, it is mooted that if you seek to drop-out of payment one would be excommunicated – I kid you not. The parish structure is financed from that tax – a vberitable gravy-train.
It isn’t just mooted – it is an established fact. BXVI has criticized the German bishops several times for imposing this penalty on the faithful and has called for the “Kirchensteuer” to be abolished. It is probably the only “sin” for which anybody is excommunicated in Germany.
I’ve heard of that tax and the way it’s applied to the faithful… Just awful.
The Communists’ name for the House Committee on Un-American Activities was “House Un-American Activities Committee.” Get it? It was the COMMITTEE that was engaged in “un-American activities.” One rarely sees the correct name.
The only “Eucharistic minister” at a Mass is the bishop or priest who celebrates it. The ordinary ministers of Communion are bishops, priests, and deacons. All others who, rightly or wrongly, distribute Communion are “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.”
Thanks David. Good refresher. The Catholic Church is in the hands of usurpers hell bent on destroying what remains of the Catholic Church. For a cast of characters involved in the destruction please note the following: http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m120.html
Let us pray that God will intervene soon.
Must be honest that I was totally confused when I became one thirty years ago. Playing priest without the sacrifice. If you catechise people properly, they wouldn’t think of ever profaning the Eucharist in this way.
I absolutely loathe the practice of lay people distributing communion. It is not their place. This practice would have been unthinkable just a few generations ago, except perhaps in rare extraordinary circumstances, and is still unthinkable in other Rites as far as I know.
Not long ago it was a mortal sin for lay people to touch the Blessed Sacrament. I personally will not touch Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Why did the Church start allowing the unnecesary use of lay people touching Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? Who is trying to destroy Holy Mother Church from within? Kyrie eleison….
Agreed, I never receive it in hand. With the way it is celebrated now, one can have a particular appreciation for how the east administers the blessed sacrament.
And in the traditional Roman rite. Even at Requiem Masses our Pastor tells “guests” he will only distribute on the tongue.
Please do not speak of lay “Eucharistic ministers”. There is no such thing. Redemptionis Sacramentum 154.
Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion aren’t even mentioned in the Vatican II documents!
In response to a post below, the correct title of Bella Dodd’s book is School of Darkness, and it is available on Amazon. A Christian publishing company keeps it going. She says that many of the over one thousand Communist agents she infiltrated into the Catholic Church had reached high positions in the hierarchy by the mid-1950’s.
No wonder people growing up in some dioceses during that period had the experience of nominally orthodox, but thin and hollow catechesis. I know many people who grew up in the 50’s who should have had a solid pre-VII education, and came out knowing next to nothing. When I tell them what the Church teaches, they tell me they never heard about it. Upstate New York was particularly bad.
Spot on with the reference to Upstate NY.
However, since Benedict encouraged the return to the Latin Mass, its celebration only continues to grow in size and number. Besides, many hold to the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church.
The fact that the Church is being attacked doesn’t mean the gates of hell will prevail; the promise of Jesus that they would not prevail instead meant the attack would come. And you’re right, the Latin Mass does continue to grow in size and number. I would venture to guess, predict even, that in 100 years the NO will be a bad memory.
I completely agree with you about the NO. I think the revival of the TLM has opened so many people’s eyes to its beautiful history. I grew up listening to my dad talking about the TLM, but I had no idea what he was talking about. It wasn’t until I moved to my current location last year that my church has the TLM at 12:30, and I wanted to see it. In this last year, I have noticed attendance grow at it. Additionally, I believe the return of the Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome has also sparked a fire within people for the return of the traditional ways. When one compares the NO to the Divine Liturgy, one will then fully crave Rome to return to the TLM. What a glorious time to be alive and a part of the church!
It’s hard to continue reading when someone quotes from AA1025 which is obvious fiction (and I believe that’s stated in the intro to the book). The best part of that book is when the anti-apostle uses a little known kung fu move that can kill people without leaving a trace and is so cool that it even makes people believe the victim died of a heart attack…
A couple of years ago I served as an EMHC, starting about a year after I was received into the church. Shortly after that, I realized I should be receiving on the tongue only. Then I realized that if *I* receive only on the tongue, then what am I doing distributing communion with my hands… and by what right? My hands are not consecrated! And now I assist only at the Extraordinary Form at a not too distant FSSP parish.
Another somewhat related point… many of the conservative catholic crowd are asking for things like ad orientum and receiving on the tongue while kneeling (at least those around me.) Does it strike anyone as odd to kneel for communion when receiving from a lay person (other than the fact you’re receiving from a lay person)? I know and fully understand that we kneel before Our Lord, but it seems like a strange juxtaposition to receive while kneeling when receiving from a 55-year old woman…
I know exactly what you mean. I received Holy Communion in the hand since I was a kid because that is what almost everybody else did around here. I began to have reservations about it several years ago but the last straw was when I went to a department store bathroom after Mass and as I was washing my hands it dawned on me that these hands had just touched the Blessed Sacrament and now they were being washed in a filthy public bathroom sink. I only have access to the NO where I am (TLM is 6-8 hrs away so I only go a few times a year) but I only receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling and only from the Priest. Once since then I received in the hand (because the Priest said we should because of the swine flew-I made a mistake there I think) and a few times from a EMHC because the were sorta unplanned but happened nonetheless. The last time though, the Priest was elderly and unable to safely distribute Holy Communion I received Our Lord from the woman EMHC. I know this is licit because of the infirmity of the Priest but it still felt wrong. That woman has no more business touching Our Lord than I do. In cases like that (it was a weekday Mass) would it not have been better NOT to distribute Holy Communion at all?
Doesn’t the parish have a second assistant priest or a deacon?
Most Parishes here have one Priest and many of them have more than one Parish to look after. In that particular case, it was an older Priest filling in for the regular one. He died last month. He filled in a lot when he was needed for Mass and heard confessions as well. That was the only time I remember him not being able to distribute Holy Communion. Please pray for the repose of his soul.
Bl. Paul VI on Vatican II
The emphasis is to highlight that which some omit when quoting Bl. Paul VI words on the Council.
*
The focus of this comment are these other words of the pope:
Below Lumen Gentium, from APPENDIX From the Acts of the Council* ‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION, NOVEMBER 16, 1964, there is
I guess for those with doubts about the Council, the question to be asking is:
1) What are those things the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church in matters of faith and morals which it declares to be binding?
2) What are the rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, that ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council?
The one who has answers to these questions is the Church.
Cf. A Pastoral and Dogmatic Council, by Randall Smith, Saturday July 19, 2014 | The Catholic Thing
Scandalized by the idea that the Council could be in some places in error? That’s fine. I was for years and have only slowly started to accept the idea over the past few months.
In regard to this latest post… The Council at no time ever actually declared anything binding. Go ahead and read everything. All the documents. There is no declarative statement. Not one thing. For something to be declared binding, it needs to be clearly stated as such, or it’s not. Thus everything falls into the second category.
Now, there is a qualitative statement made right at the beginning that says:
“…inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium…”
This isn’t explicitly saying that everything actually has that character, but when they have that character it is to be accepted. And while, ideally, we can simply trust the Church to make these things clear, the hierarchical Church has failed to do so. But the Christ has given us more than just the Church’s current speaking; we have 2,000 years of tradition, we have our reason, and we have the sensus fidei. There is clearly a sense among the faithful, nearly all, that something went wrong around Vatican 2. I doubt you’d argue this. Most attribute it to “the Spirit of Vatican II” or something like it. But when we stop and investigate the matter, when we look at the 2000 years previous and look at V2 itself, we see statements that simply cannot be reconciled. This is a much more simple answer than any other… Apply Occam’s Razor and you see, through God’s gift to you of reason, that there are things contained within V2 that are in error… either some or all of it…
As I said yesterday, you have my prayers, and I hope I have yours.
P.S. You can quote documents all day but if those documents are in error or have qualifying statements it doesn’t help.
@Jafin you interjected in an earlier discussion thread, and when I answered you and pointed out your errors you kept on repeating:
I proceeded to make a follow up and well-supported post for the benefit of fellow Catholics and I am really at a loss as to why then you would follow me and make reply comments.
This book isn’t the place for the critique of recent liturgical
changes in the Church-particularly the method of dispensing
Holy Communion. But we’d like to suggest an experiment.
From now on, to get a movie ticket, Americans should have to
kneel before a consecrated celibate wearing ceremonial robes
and take the ticket between their teeth – never daring to touch it
with their hands. Within a generation or so, they’d all develop
certain ideas about movie tickets and their significance.
Now take the Eucharist and reverse the process, treating it like a
movie ticket…Enough said.”
The Bad Catholics Guide to Good Living, John Zmirak
Don’t expect PF consecrates Russia. He’s much more a combination of communist, free mason, heretic and modernist. You have not paid any attention what’s happening in the Church lately. Catholic Church is in big crisis and getting heavy damages caused by this pope. Many faithful Catholic have kept praying to God for putting away this pope.
For all the “handers” out there, just think of the sacrilege that you commit when Particles of Jesus fall on the floor and get trampled on, or are thrown in the wash from your clothes. All you EMHCs will answer for more as you enable the grave sin of said sacrilege. Enabling sin is one way that you participating in said sin. Yes, this latter point applies to all priests as well, who have much to answer for. Remember that Communion in the hand was started by disobedience and was made a decision of the local bishop, who will have even more to answer for. And don’t say that Communion in the hand nowadays is what was practiced in the early Church. That is totally false. There was a white cloth put over the hand and you used your tongue to get Eucharistic Jesus from the cloth, not self-communicating with your own hands.
Preamble: I hope and pray the use of EMHC ends, ASAP. That being said:
The use of EHMCs is not merely a “common-law” practice. Rome explicitly declared it licit, within certain parameters, as reflected in the current code of Canon Law, #910, section 2, which to my knowledge codified permission granted by Rome in other documents back in, I believe, the late 60s and early 70s, prior to the current code being issued (which was in 1983). It is also explicitly allowed for in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
A common-law practice comes to have the force of law due to the length of time it has been done. That was not the case with EMHCs, since it wasn’t a long standing practice prior to the first permissions (which is of course one of the arguments that it shouldn’t be done).
Whether we like it or not, Rome currently says the use of EHMCs is licit within certain parameters. We may all argue against it being considered licit, and argue that it should be declared illicit again, because this is a prudential disciplinary matter, so it’s not a violation of obedience to make the case (if done correctly and respectfully, not attacking Rome), especially since someone like Cardinal Rajnith has said publicly that he thinks we should end the practice. But Rome is the final arbiter of what is licit discipline, not us individually. I bother about this because we can sometimes forget it.
I repeat, I hope and pray this is changed back, and it can’t be too soon.
When I was a seventh grader , at Holy Name parish in Springfield MA, the pastor invited a Jesuit to Mass to give a homily. I remember him saying something like -him and his Communist buddies were both “seeking the same goals” i.e. social justice, paradise on earth, wealth distribution, yada yada….
My little seventh grade mind chaffed at this thinking: “what a load of crap!” I thought. Surely the pastor knows Communists are atheists! WRONG! He and the rest of the parish lapped this “Communists-are our-allies in making the world a better place” stuff up like thirsty camels.
Fortunately I have retained my BS detector intact , and being better tuned today, the alarms are going off all over the place.
This is a tremendous article, but sadly, it falls flat on the very last sentence, as I hold little hope for the consecration of Russia by Francis.
“[W]e must respect Christ’s monarchical authority.” True. There are five problems here for both heretics who twist the faith and apostates who throw faith out the window. Must? Virtue is obligatory. Respect? A just person cannot fail to show respect. Christ? The principal agent of the Church. Monarchical? Christ shares principal powers with the Trinity. Authority? It takes power to teach, heal and suffer. Oh, and the St. Pius X Society twists the faith.
. .
Lay Eucharistic Ministers, Here in France………..They don’t even wash their hands, they are usually nuts and they are usually female.
Whenever confronted with the Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister option at a mass we change communion lane.
The worst thing about this is there are priests who carry it to an extreme and go to a side aisle and there will to 2 extraordinary ministers in the center aisle, whenever I see this it horrifies me. I never receive the Eucharist from anyone but an ordained priest or a Deacon, and even the Deacon bothers me.
Yes because deacons are no longer required to be celibate as they once were.
One parish we know the priest parks himself in a chair and lets the deacon take the precious Blood. He has an army of mostly female “Eucharistic Ministers ” who may be dressed in flip flops and capri pants distribute Holy Communion. They are careless too. when they drop a host they just pick it up and put it their hand under the bowl and go on as if nothing happened.
This guy is a lunatic.