Daily Archives: March 2, 2017

REBLOG: Communion: On The Tongue Or “Magic Trick”?

I have already explained in my post about the Catholic Onion that when the bishop acts correctly, his priests feel encouraged in going the right way even if this may result unpopular and conversely, if the Bishop doesn’t care for properly transmitted Catholic values this mentality will end up informing the behaviour of many of the priests in his diocese.

A beautiful example here, courtesy of Father Z.

You will remember Bishop Olmsted, the rather decisive bishop who recently excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride and deprived the Hospital of St. Joseph of the right to call itself “Catholic”.

It will now please you to read that when a good example is given from the top, it becomes both easier and more easily acceptable for the priests of the diocese to follow the lead and take the necessary steps towards the recovery of reverent liturgical customs. In Bishop Olmsted’s diocese itself, Fr John Lankeit is actively working towards a gradual elimination of communion in the hand.

His words are sincere and alarming: “What I witness troubles me. And I’m not alone” writes Fr Lankeit. You immediately understand that here is one not likely to throw M&Ms at the faithful during Mass.

Fr Lankeit puts the extent of the problem in clear terms:

While my main objective in encouraging reception on the tongue is to deepen appreciation for the Eucharist, I also have a pastoral responsibility to eliminate abuses common to receiving in the hand.

Notice here the double whammy: a) reception on the tongue is the best way in itself; b) reception in the hand causes abuses.

It follows a list of examples, seen “all too frequently”, which I hope will not disturb your sleep:

• Blessing oneself with the host before consuming it. (The act of blessing with the Eucharist is called “Benediction” and is reserved to clergy).

• Receiving the host in the palm of the hand, contorting that same hand until the host is controlled by the fingers, then consuming it (resembling a one-handed “watch-the-coin-disappear” magic trick)

• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.

• Attempting to receive with only one hand.

• Attempting to receive with other items in the hands, like a dirty Kleenex or a Rosary.

• Receiving the host with dirty hands.

• Receiving the host, closing the hand around it, then letting the hand fall to the side (as if carrying a suitcase) while walking away and/or blessing oneself with the other hand.

• Walking away without consuming the host.

• Giving the host to someone else after receiving…yes, it happens!

Some of these I had already imagined; others go beyond my ability to figure out how they happen (the “magic trick”, say); other still can only be defined as astonishing (the dirty hands, the rosary, the kleenex, the “blessing oneself” (??) and the walking away with the host as if it were a piece of luggage).

I am certainly wrong here, but I can’t avoid always seeing in the receiving on the hand an element of “I am the priest of myself” that, at some level, must be buried within the consciousness of the communicant. I just can’t avoid seeing the placing of the communion wafer on the tongue as a priestly function and besides, how one can come to the idea of receiving God the same way as he eats bread and salami is just beyond my understanding.

Father Lankeit doesn’t express himself in such terms of course, but one can clearly see the liturgical zeal and sincere desire to lead his parishioners to better understand the importance of Communion and of acting accordingly. He writes about this four weeks in a row. This is another who, like his Bishop, will be heard. More like him and his Bishop and the beauty and reverence of the Mass will be speedily restored everywhere.

Mundabor

Advertisements

Satan, Dressed In White, Is Preaching From The Pulpit

francis-3

Francis is speaking to Catholics.

 

 

There is almost no day without headlines of a next socialist/communist/environ-mentalist homily from the Evil Clown. As I have written several times, Francis is spouting exactly the same nonsense that a Che Guevara-type would spout if suddenly made Pope, and asked to address the Catholic masses. 

Francis hates you. He hates your sensus catholicus, your desire to be good, your fear of the Lord. He hates you because you are a Catholic. It’s not even that he wants you to defeat and become one of his (I think he realistically understands this is not going to happen). More simply, he is perfectly happy with insulting you for as long as he lives, whilst he presents himself to you and a bright example of that “merciful” attitude you will never have.

He does it day in, and day out. But sometimes he does it in an even more aggressive way than usual.

I stumbled upon this  and, whilst I normally avoid to offer the Evil Clown a resonance box, the impiousness and scandal are so big that I feel I have to spend some words. 

The entire sermon is one breathtaking, satanic statement of rebellion to the Church. But the horror of this man’s mind is well summarised in this statement, introduced by the writer (Francis always rambles so much that everything must be abridged) and followed by the words of the Evil Clown himself (emphases mine):

But if this is the truth, and adultery is serious, how then, the Pope asks, does one explain that Jesus spoke “many times with an adulteress, a pagan?” That He “drank from the glass of her who was not purified?” And at the end He said to her: “I do not condemn you. Sin no more”? How does one explain that?

“And the path of Jesus – it’s quite clear – is the path from casuistry to truth and mercy. Jesus lays aside casuistry. Not here, but in other passages from the Gospel, He qualifies those who want to put Him to the test, those who think with this logic of ‘Yes, you can’ as hypocrites. Even with the fourth commandment these people refused to assist their parents with the excuse that they had given a good offering to the Church. Hypocrites. Casuistry is hypocritical. It is a hypocritical thought. ‘Yes, you can; no, you can’t’… which then becomes more subtle, more diabolical: But what is the limit for those who can? But from here to here I can’t. It is the deception of casuistry.

The commandments – all of them – are just disposable, and you are a hypocrite if you dare to say to a Catholic that “yes, he can” follow them. The Church has, for the course of her entire existence, been a huge Pharisaic apparatus bent on oppressing the poor faithful and betraying the message of Christ. Jews had commandments, but Jesus substitutes them with “truth” and “mercy”, and denounces rigid rules as the “deception of casuistry”. Un-Francis-believable.

This is straight from Satan’s mouth. This is the fodder reprobates all over the world are eagerly awaiting for, and Francis is feeding them day in and day out. But this is also so overtly satanic, so patently absurd, that no Catholic with some fear of the Lord in him can really believe he has now, courtesy of this Argentinian ass, a new Catholicism at his disposal. The Evil Clown will only fool those who ardently wish to be fooled. Not one single Catholic, not one, can believe this rubbish for a moment. 

I wish I could kick this man in his fat, old ass until at least a glimmer of Catholicism appears in his socialist, godless, perverted mind. I actually think it would be a merciful act to do so as he would give him at least a little shot at salvation. Alas, he is the Pope, so I will have to be content with praying that he dies soon instead. 

M

 

%d bloggers like this: