Deflections, Or: The Bishop, The Trads, And The Saintly Switchboard Operator.

 

I think I should say a word or two about the mounting controversy about the Bishop, The Trads, and The Saintly Switchboard Operator.

First things first: Bishop Stika is The Gayest Fool Of All.  He is  (I have already written this, but repetita iuvant) a Christ hating Bishop.

Stop for a moment and reflect on what must happen in the mind of a Bishop who goes above and beyond the already cowardly attitude of his Bishops’ conference and gives a public order to deny communion on the tongue. Really, we are talking here of stuff who would not have been believed, would have been considered an absurd, and not even funny, joke only two generations ago.

What we have here is a Bishop who self-appoints himself as the ultimate health expert and pretends to “protect” his flock from this most dangerous practice, the reception of Our Lord as this has always been practiced in the history of the Church before the Age Of Effeminacy. It really is beyond stupid, it goes into the realm of outright insult to the Sacrament. The fact that the Bishop pretends not to see it (I think he does it very well) goes to show what an irrelevance Christ has become in his eyes, and how great is his need to signal virtue and to show how very aligned he is with the current madness. What do I say, aligned? He wants to show that he is better than everybody else!

Truly, this is of Satan, and no discussion allowed.

Still, what I want to discuss today is a trick used by liberals, women, and more or less gay bishops all over the world: the deflection. The Bishop complains that the angry trads have insulted his own telephone operator, who is so saintly and has just lost her husband! What cruel Nazis these trads are!

Give me a break.

Firstly, the saintliness of the operator is nothing to do with the facts at hand, and is merely an emotional handle to make people look bad, or worse than bad. It is certainly wrong to abuse anybody on the phone who is innocent of denying communion on the tongue to faithful Catholics who actually care for Christ and the Sacraments. But this is wrong irrespective of the saintliness of the person abused. This is a deflection.

Secondly, I very much doubt that said, saintly switchboard operator said to the person or persons on the phone, “my dear Sir, can you please kindly consider that I am not only a saintly person, but have recently lost my husband?” Consequently, the sad bereavement of the saintly operator should really not be part of the conversation. This is, also, a deflection.

But the third,  and most important, deflection is this: the Bishop should have addressed the matter at hand, instead of throwing mud on his critics by lamenting an episode totally unrelated to it. We all know there will always be the occasional intemperate person, and we all know this controversy is not about that.

This deflection and accusation of rudeness is, by the way, the passive aggressive stuff often seen in women: “blablablabla HE WAS RUDE!!! blablablabla”.  The issue at hand is not addressed; but hey, you are supposed to lose, because you hurt her feelings.

Bishop Stika is doing exactly this; albeit, being born with, at least physically, manly attributes, he needs a saintly switchboard operator to get his desired deflection.

In my eyes, Bishop Stika should do the following:

1. Get real for a moment and reflect that people who are angry at him, and perhaps even people who – wrongly, of course – abuse the saintly receptionist on the phone, do so because they love Christ, His Church and Her Sacrament vastly more than the Bishop will ever be able to understand, and his behaviour makes their blood boil. 
2. Get real again, grow some figurative balls to go together with the physical ones, announce urbi et orbi that he has made a mistake, and make clear that his diocese will henceforward follow the guidelines of the Bishops’ Conference, without any of that gay, virtue-signalling stuff. He lives in Kentucky, for crying out loud. There will be no liberal revolution.

But no. It had to be the effeminate “y’all are so, so, sooo rude” non-answer.

 

 

 

 

The Gayest Fool Of All

 

Let us say, you are a Bishop who hates Christ, for reasons known to you and, possibly, to a restricted number of other men only.

You are obviously terrified at the idea of masses resuming more or less regularly, and faithful Christian receiving on the tongue, as even the Bishops’ Conference of your own Country says you should be allowed to do.

What do you do?

Why, you show yourself oh so concerned for the health of everybody, of course! This allows you to create rules that no one else has and a fuss without precedent, which then makes it easier to justify banning Communion on the tongue.

You might release instructions like this one:

1. The faithful who present themselves for communion on the tongue will be denied communion.
2. Those who want to receive in the only way allowed (the Protestant/ V Ii one) get the following instruction: “Once you leave your pew/chair you will proceed single file (maintaining 6 feet apart) to the distribution point,” Stika wrote. “Immediately before you reach the distribution point you will remove your protective face mask placing it in your pocket and sanitize your hands with 70% alcohol-based sanitizing gel/solution (which will be on a small table directly in front of the distribution point). “Standing on the floor-marked X (or kneeling at the 6-foot marked locations along the communion rail), you will extend your arms and hands toward the priest/deacon with the palm of your non-writing hand facing up and completely flat supported by your writing hand,”

You will, of course, look like a total fag, which will possibly not displease you at all. Still, you will achieve your trifecta of virtue signaling, antagonising the true faithful, and enmity with Christ.

“But Mundabor, Mundabor!” – You might say – “This is too dumb even for satire! No bishop would be as thick as that!”

You would think that, wouldn’t you?

I have bad news for you: read here. 

 

 

 

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

Caution! Orthodox Catholic!

Padre Pio is receiving communion. Little he knew today he would be considered a health hazard...

Crap Magazine (no link!) has a Q & A “corner”, where the level of dirt reaches standards of dirtiness worrying even for them.

A reader “fights being judgmental”, but actually can't resist showing her supposed liberal superiority to the man who insists on receiving from the priest. She (or him, or it) asks what to do. She had not seen an abomination like this is 30 years (imagine the parish… or the liar…). She doesn't know what to do! To want to receive from the priest! Well, I never…

The answer, coming from a “Reverend”, is a mixture of contempt and patronising. The Rev symphatises with the reader, and assures him or her or it that his experience is more recent than thirty years. He tries to be a good Catholic, though, and shows tolerance to these poor deluded people, without trying to correct him. But then he observes how vaguely dangerous this people are, there was one who even knelt, and there's the risk of all the others tumbling over him!

These devout Catholics are a latent health hazard! But let's suffer them for the sake of inclusiveness. How good, how good we are!

M

 

World Sacrilege Day

You can see for yourself on Father Z's blog two pictures of the way the communion was distributed during the recent Francis Show Day.

Apparently the excellent Messa in Latino has more, but I have no heart to go there; what I have seen on Father Z's blog is more than enough for me.

This is an abomination on so many levels. Can't imagine how many very badly instructed Catholics took the host home as a “souvenir”. The number of those who travelled to the place with the intent to get to a host they could desecrate in a black mass, in a video or the like must have been in the dozens, if not in the hundreds. How many hosts fell on the ground and were just left there, trampled by the masses of Francis' groupies, does not bear thinking.

One thinks of those stupid times gone by, when people counted Rosaries and received communion on the tongue.

How the Spirit has worked on the Church.

Eh? Ah? No?

The Bishop of Rome wants people to make a mess.

One cannot deny he is leading by example.

Mundabor

 

Involuntary Humour

Involuntary humour at the site of His Hermeneuticalness, where the problem of – I kid you not – people who walk away with communion is dealt with.

What to do, asks the excellent author. People so addressed can easily lose their temper, so the matter of people simply going away with the Body of Christ must be dealt with in an appropriately sensitive manner.

Have some “guardians” near the priest, says one.

Yes, says another, “communion guardians” are becoming more frequent int he US because of the danger of willful desecration.

Ushers should do the job, says a third.

————–

Oh, how stupid our pre-Vatican II ancestor were, who would distribute on the tongue!

We have tons of useless apps, so we must be smarter.

Mundabor   

Liberal Catholicism Explained

From Messa In Latino, a beautiful example of liberal tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

In Caltanissetta (Sicily), a priest decides that one either receives on the tongue, or he doesn’t receive at all. Is he allowed to do so according to Canon Law? I don’t know, and frankly I doubt.

What I do not doubt, though, is that one of the liberal non-communicants went to the sacristy after Mass and started to insult the poor priest with such violence that other people, forcibly hearing the scene, called the Carabinieri.

Yep, I’d say this explains well the “spirit” of liberal Catholicism.

Mundabor

Bishop Athanasius Schneider On Communion In The hand

The Church was there before they came, and was there after they had gone.

I have already written about Bishop Athanasius Schneider here and if you read the blog post you’ll see that Bishop Schneider is not one who takes his role lightly.

Thanks to another excellent comment of Schmenz, I was alerted to this great video from the “Athanasius Contra Mundum” Blog, in which this excellent bishop speaks about communion in the hand.

Many are the interesting issues touched in this fragment of TV interview. The parts which most impressed me are the initial ones, where a young boy (being raised up in a communist regime) is shocked at being informed that in Germany Holy Communion can be received in the hand as if it was a piece of cake. More moving still is the part when the bishop remembers his mother searching for a church distributing communion on the tongue and – after failing to do so – giving in to tears. May God bless these beautiful souls and give them back one thousand times in glory what they had to endure in suffering and persecution.

Imagine for a second a persecuted Catholic family in a communist country – people ready to suffer daily humiliations and discrimination for the Lord – at seeing the Body of Christ casually distributed and superficially received (or I should say: eaten) in a way that to these poor family must have seemed a perfect absurdity and the epitome of shallow and desecrating behaviour. This was in 1973, an age when the older generation had still been properly instructed and had to witness the crumbling of a liturgical world made of reverence and sacredness.

At the same time, the perfect shock of these pious and persecuted people at what they were forced to witness gives the full measure of tragedy of the drunken years following Vatican II, an unforgivable liturgical booze-up whose after-effect is still felt within the Church.

Bishop Schneider gives hope that a new generation of bishops will put things right but at the same time exposes the betrayal of the most elementary sense of the sacred incited, permitted or tolerated by most Western bishops.

Once again, Kudos to Bishop Schneider for his beautiful and moving words. We do need more like him, but why must we go as far as Kazakhstan to hear a bishop talking with such reverence?

Mundabor

 

Communion: On The Tongue Or “Magic Trick”?

Princess Grace receiving on the tongue.

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

Extraordinary Ministers And Conservative Catholics.

Father Z has, some time ago, posted an interesting post about a Catholic churchgoer explaining why she might renounce communion on the tongue.

What could have seemed the usual rant of an oldish feminist now deciding that communion on the tongue is too much identified with “Catholic Crusaders” turned out to be a real and well-meant concern of desecration of the host due to the inability of many “extraordinary ministers” to cope with communion on the tongue.

I’d like to give my short comment in the usual intolerant and crusader-like way.

1) If you ask me, the lady’s mistake was that she chose to receive communion from an eucharistic minister in the first place. As the priest is always there giving communion a Catholic who wants to receive on the tongue should actually do the obvious thing and queue on the priest’s line, whilst the “communion in the hand”-crowd will be left, if they really really want, to the eucharistic minister(ess).

2) The priest can certainly be blamed for not properly training the eucharistic ministers but in all honesty, not many priests expect one who wants to receive on the tongue to queue on the eucharistic minister’s line. I was surprised to read that something like that happens at all.

3) My personal experience is that on such occasions (where eucharistic ministers are present) the queue to receive from the priest is much longer than the ones to receive from the eucharistic ministers and I have seen scenes that were authentically embarrassing for the latter. Nowadays, eucharistic ministers are as much in fashion as bell bottom jeans. Thank God for that.

4) It goes without saying that the recovery of sound Catholic practice goes through the abolition of eucharistic ministers, a sad and ridiculous leftover of years of theological drunkenness and liturgical abuse. The same goes for the communion in the hand, something reminding me more and more of Donald Trump’s hair or Elton John’s clothes.

A conservative Catholic should, in my eyes, vote with his own feet and receive communion in the same way as countless generations before him have done.

It is not about better training the eucharistic minister. It is about getting rid of (well) her.

Mundabor

Ecclesia Dei: Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue in the Tridentine Mass.

The right way to do it.

Father Z references a letter (in German) dated June 21st from Ecclesia Dei stating that

the celebration of Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form envisages the reception of Holy Communion while kneeling, as the Sacred Host is laid directly on the tongue of the communicant. There is no provision for the distribution of Holy Communion on the hand in this Form of the Holy Mass.

One would think that in a Tridentine Mass the reception of Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue would be obvious, but apparently this is not the case.

I thought that this letter would be worth a little hurrah.

Mundabor