Who is really weaponizing the Eucharist?

 

From Bishop Samuel Aquila:

"Jesus counseled the disciples to enter 'through the narrow gate,' since the road that leads to destruction is broad and 'those who enter through it are many,' but the road that leads to life is narrow and 'those who find it are few' (Mt. 7:13-14).

Those of us who have followed the news in the last week or so know that the press has declared that the U.S. Bishops are planning to ban President Biden from Communion, allegedly ignoring the Vatican’s guidance. Of course, that is not true when one looks at the details of what we discussed at our June meeting and what Cardinal Ladaria said in his letter to the bishops.

The bishops were asked by Cardinal Ladaria, who heads the Vatican’s doctrine office, to build consensus about how to respond to Catholics who hold public positions and who insist on receiving Holy Communion after publicly committing grave sins. After hours of discussion, the bishops voted 168 to 55 to draft a document that addresses both this issue and the broader question of what places any person in a state of not being able to receive Communion. The document, which will be drafted and then discussed regionally in the coming months, will strive to make the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist and worthily receiving the Lord more widely known.

Despite the efforts made to clearly communicate that the document is 'not meant to be disciplinary in nature, nor is it targeted at any one individual or class of persons,' 60 Catholic lawmakers released a letter one hour after our vote justifying their support for legalized abortion and arguing that the bishops have 'weaponized the Eucharist.'

This is deflecting the blame for the situation. Instead of accepting their own responsibility to understand and follow Church teaching, these politicians are the ones who are 'weaponizing the Eucharist' by insisting that they remain in good standing despite publicly committing grave sins and continuing to receive Communion. Everyone with common sense understands that their claim of being in communion with the Church is false. One cannot say one believes something, do the complete opposite and then credibly say that they are in communion with a Church that believes what they did is evil.

To add another layer to this, many bishops – including myself – have been privately dialoguing with Catholic politicians on abortion and other issues for years, urging them to refrain from Communion if they won’t change their immoral political positions. Unfortunately, many – but not all – of these public figures have chosen political expediency over the Gospel. They value their political party and their power more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They do not serve as a leaven of the Gospel in society, but rather build a culture of death. They cite the importance of following their consciences but fail to explain how their conscience is a properly formed conscience. Instead, they adopt a form of relativism that says, 'truth is different for every person.'

As Jesus said to the disciples, the road that leads to eternal life is narrow and those who attempt to take the wide road are headed for destruction. We see this in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he warns that some people had received the Eucharist in a state of grave sin and became sick or died. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:27-30).

Drawing on St. Paul, the Church’s teaching for every Catholic about worthily receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus is that one “must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance” (Catechism 1415)..."

In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: 'Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?' The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected." 

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395

Related reading here

Francis: The Eucharist is the bread of sinners

 

As noted here, Francis just said that: "..the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners."

While it is true that the Holy Mass is ordered to the forgiveness of venial sins, those conscious of grave sin should not approach the Eucharist.

Paragraph 1395 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church."

In 1 Corinthians 11: 27-29 we read [those of us who, unlike Francis, actually read Sacred Scripture]: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Communion on the tongue safer than Communion in the hand

 

I've been saying this right along: Communion on the tongue is safer than Communion in the hand.  Another study confirms this.  See here.

And yet, the former Bishop of the Springfield Massachusetts Diocese (Bishop Mitchell Rozanski) used the pandemic to crush reverence for the Holy Eucharist throughout his sodomite-ridden local Church.  See here.

Communion on the tongue has always been, and continues to be, the norm.  See here.

The filth of the Springfield Diocese and it's legacy here.

Cardinal Sarah: Summoning the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling

Life Site News reports:

"The head of the Vatican department overseeing liturgy is summoning the Catholic faithful to return to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

In the preface to a new book on the subject, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, writes: 'The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful.'

'Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host,' he said.

The new book, by Don Federico Bortoli, was released in Italian under the title: ‘The distribution of Communion on the hand: a historical, juridical and pastoral survey’ [La distribuzione della comunione sulla mano. Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali].

Recalling the centenary of the Fatima apparitions, Sarah writes that the Angel of Peace who appeared to the three shepherd children in advance of the Blessed Virgin’s visit 'shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ.' His Eminence then identifies the outrages by which Jesus is offended today in the Holy Eucharist, including “so-called ‘intercommunion.’”

Sarah goes on to consider how faith in the Real Presence 'can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa,' and he proposes Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as two modern saints whom God has given us to imitate in their reverence and reception of the Holy Eucharist..."


Communion on the tongue is the normative manner of receiving the Eucharist. Communion in the hand is allowed by indult (a sort of grudging permission if you will) and should never be presented as the preferred way of receiving.

The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship teaches clearly that, “The new manner of giving communion [in the hand] must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice..” And, “The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately…it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament.”

On kneeling for Holy Communion, see here.

Francis, Mueller and the so-called internal forum solution approach...

The AP is reporting that:

"Pope Francis on Saturday reaffirmed the 'primacy' of using one's conscience to navigate tough moral questions in his first comments since he was publicly accused of spreading heresy by emphasizing conscience over hard and fast Catholic rules.

Francis issued a video message to a conference organized by Italian bishops on his controversial 2016 document on family life, 'The Joy of Love.' The document has badly divided the Catholic Church, with some commentators warning that it risked creating a schism given its opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Francis told the conference that priests must inform Catholic consciences 'but not replace them.' And he stressed the distinction between one's conscience — where God reveals himself — and one's ego that thinks it can do as it pleases.


'The contemporary world risks confusing the primacy of conscience, which must always be respected, with the exclusive autonomy of an individual with respect to his or her relations,' Francis said.

Francis reaffirmed the centrality of 'The Joy of Love' as the church's guide to Catholic couples today trying to navigate the ups and downs of complicated family situations.

When it was released in April 2016, 'The Joy of Love' immediately sparked controversy because it cautiously opened the door to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion.

Church teaching holds that unless these Catholics obtain an annulment — a church decree declaring their first marriage invalid — they cannot receive the sacraments since they are seen as committing adultery in the eyes of the church.

Francis didn't give these Catholics an automatic pass, but suggested that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis, with the couples' 'well-formed' consciences as the guide.

Conservatives accused the pope of sowing confusion and undermining the church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Four prominent cardinals formally asked for a clarification to five "dubia," or doubts, they said had been spawned by the document.

More recently, a group of traditionalist and conservative priests and scholars formally accused Francis of spreading heresy.

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, whom Francis recently removed as the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog, didn't join the four 'dubia' cardinals or the heresy accusers. But he warned in a recent book preface that 'schismatic temptations and dogmatic confusion' had been sown as a result of the debate over the document. He said such confusion was 'dangerous for the unity of the church.'

Mueller sought to offer his own interpretation — that 'The Joy of Love' can only be read as a continuity of the church's traditional teaching on marriage — offering what he said was his own 'contribution to re-establishing peace in the church.'"

Holy Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics on a case-by-case basis with the couples "well-formed consciences" as the guide represents "a continuity of the Church's traditional teaching on marriage"?

How so Your Eminence?  The Church has already addressed the so-called "internal forum solution" proposed by Francis.  Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained that:

"By the way, as far as the 'internal forum solution' is concerned as a means for resolving the question of the validity of a prior marriage, the magisterium has not sanctioned its use for a number of reasons, among which is the inherent contradiction of resolving something in the internal forum which by nature also pertains to and has such important consequences for the external forum. Marriage , not a private act, has deep implications of course for both of the spouses and resulting children and also for Christian and civil society.  Only the external forum can give real assurance to the petitioner, himself not a disinterested party, that he is not guilty of rationalisation.  Likewise, only the external forum can address the rights or claims of the other partner of the former union, and, in the case of the tribunal's issuance of a judgment of nullity, make possible entering into a canonically valid, sacramental marriage." (Ratzinger, "Church, Pope and Gospel").

The problem with letting couples using their consciences as a guide is that there is often a tendency to rationalize sin. Likewise, couples committing adultery will often be tempted to rationalize their situation when considering whether or not to approach Holy Eucharist which is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395).

As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "The practice of the so-called internal forum approach lies in trying to reduce a problem about the validity of a marriage (or one's right to receive Holy Eucharist, my note) to a private problem of individual conscience, even though marriage is ineluctably social as a human reality and ineluctably ecclesial as a saving mystery.  The practice of so-called internal forum solutions also is pastorally disastrous. Even though someone whose problem has been dealt with in this way may really believe he or she is not living in sin (such as receiving Holy Eucharist unworthily because one is living in adultery, my note), the practice itself cannot reasonably be expected to being about that state of conscience.  For it invites self-deception and rationalization, and peace of conscience attained by such means is not a reliable sign of freedom from the guilt of grave sin (See CMP, 3.C).

As I explained in a previous post:

"For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.


For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience."

Cardinal Mueller apparently has not considered these truths.  Nor has Francis.

What a shame!

Not all are welcome at Saint Mary's Church in Orange...

From the USCCB:


"The Church continues to affirm the dignity of every human being, and to grow in knowledge and understanding of the gifts and needs of her members who live with disabilities. Likewise, the Church recognizes that every parish community includes members with disabilities, and earnestly desires their active participation. All members of the Body of Christ are uniquely called by God by virtue of their Baptism. In light of this call, the Church seeks to support all in their growth in holiness, and to encourage all in their vocations. Participating in, and being nourished by, the grace of the sacraments is essential to this growth in holiness. Catholic adults and children with disabilities, and their families, earnestly desire full and meaningful participation in the sacramental life of the Church.

In this regard, as it issues a revised and expanded Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wishes to reiterate what was said in previous pastoral statements on this issue:

 It is essential that all forms of the liturgy be completely accessible to persons with disabilities, since these forms are the essence of the spiritual tie that binds the Christian community together. To exclude members of the parish from these celebrations of the life of the Church, even by passive omission, is to deny the reality of that community. Accessibility involves far more than physical alterations to parish buildings. Realistic provision must be made for Catholics with disabilities to participate fully in the Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations.."

Because I took exception to a homily given last weekend by Father Piotr Pawlus denigrating Our Lord by asserting that He has "warts," Fr. Pawlus responded this weekend .with hatred and a passive aggressive attitude, passing over my mother at Communion time.

Although my mother is 86 and recovering from back surgery, Father Pawlus refused to give her Holy Communion at the first pew where she was sitting and forced her to stand up and get in line to receive the Eucharist.

This is realistic provision for a Catholic with a disability?  What is this but an act of violence?  What is this but weaponizing the Eucharist and denying the reality of community?

And so we see once again that what passes for Catholicism at Saint Mary's Church in Orange is a counterfeit. Only those who march in lockstep with the modernists at Saint Mary's Church are welcome.  Others will be discriminated against, hated and excluded.

"They genuflect before the world and stand before Christ..."

Vatican Insider reports:

"Pope Francis met the new leader of the Knights of Malta Friday in a toned-down encounter in which the head of the historic chivalric order seemed to emphasize its loyalty to the pontiff after a period of tension with the Vatican earlier this year.

As Francis greeted Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto in the antechamber to the papal library, the head knight genuflected before the pontiff and kissed his ring."

But while Francis enjoys being genuflected before, he refuses to kneel before Our Eucharistic Lord.  See here.

This should come as no surprise. I've said this many times before, masonic forces seek to subvert the Church from within and to create a 'new church' created in the image and likeness of man. The new humanitarian religion will result from a quiet revolution within the Church. This new religion will be anti-supernatural. And it will embrace the Socialistic New World Order and the Reign of Antichrist. This is the false church Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich saw in her visions.

In this false church within the True Church, the cancer within the Mystical Body of Christ, there is a loss of the sense of the sacred.  Which is why Fr. Miceli wrote that, "Much of the new liturgy has been drained of the numinous and the sacred.  The new forms are without splendor, flattened, undifferentiated.  Why was kneeling replaced by standing?  Jesus himself fell on his knees and on his face as he prayed to his heavenly Father.  Satan too knows the meaning of worship and man's need for it.  He tried to get Jesus to fall down and worship him.  Why has the liturgical year and the Mass been so unfortunately mutilated against the wishes of the faithful?  In fact, the faithful are now confused about the Mass, the feast of the saints, the holy seasons.  Why was the Gloria, that prayer of total consecration on God's Majesty and Goodness, restricted practically to Sundays alone, and only to those Sundays outside of Lent?  Moreover, is the faith really renewed and vivified by by obscuring our sense of community with the Christians of apostolic and ancient times?  The new liturgy no longer draws us into the true experience of reliving the Life of Christ.  We are deprived of this experience through the elimination of the hierarchy of feasts and the at random changing of the dates of famous feasts....

Then too, the new forms are the result of experimentation.  But one experiments with things, with objects that one wants to analyze.  Experimentation is the method of science.  The wretched idolatry and vulgarity of tinkering with sacred realities has, unfortunately, penetrated the Church and produced a mediocrity-ridden liturgy, a show for spectators that distracts from the holy, frustrates intimate communion with God and trivializes, where it does not suppress, sacred actions, symbols, music and words.

In reality, such diminished liturgies have renewed nothing.  Rather these innovations have emptied churches, dried up vocations to the priesthood and sisterhood, driven off converts and opened the doors wide to a flood of renegades.  Even though valid in its essence, such a new liturgy cannot inspire for it is colorless, artificial, banal, without the odor and flavor of sanctity.  A humanized and popularized, man-oriented liturgy will never produce saints.  Only a divinized, God-oriented liturgy can accomplish that miracle.  One suspects that many priests realize the banality of the new liturgy.  That is why they often become, during the Mass and other ceremonies, actors and entertainers.  They put on a show in order to gain the attention of the congregation.  These comedians in chasubles preach a utopian Christianity rather than the true Christianity.  Their treasure is man rather than God; their emphasis this-worldly rather than other-worldly; their goal progress rather than sanctity; their apostolate is immanent rather than transcendent; their means to their goal is the way of revolution rather than the way of the cross; they preach a secular Church instead of the Sacred Church founded by Christ; the essence of their morality is self-assertion rather than self-denial; the Christ they present to the congregation is the Humanist Christ rather than the God-Man crucified Christ...they genuflect before the world and stand before Christ...they are moved by resentment and envy instead of radiating the joy of Christ.."

The Bishops of Malta depart from the Faith...

As this EWTN article makes clear:

"In "Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world's bishops on October 14, 1994 said,

7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is  essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church's life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation."

The Bishops of Malta, inspired no doubt by Francis, have rejected this perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church founded on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.

They have just declared that:


"With 'an informed and enlightened conscience,' a separated or divorced person living in a new relationship who is able 'to acknowledge and believe that he or she is at peace with God,' the bishops said, 'cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

For the Bishops of Malta, the teaching of Christ Jesus is something irrelevant.  Relegated to the garbage basket as well is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church (CCC, 1395).

But when you've made yourself your own God, the Commandments of the Lord Jesus are easily disposed of.

Deacon Ryan Duns: Archbishop Nienstedt comes across as homophobic

In a Blog post addressing a letter written by Archbishop John Nienstedt to a mother explaining the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and the reception of the Holy Eucharist, Deacon Ryan Duns, the Jesuit seminarian who believes that "gay marriage" might be a movement of the Holy Spirit, said that the Archbishop's letter, "..serves only to reinforce the belief that the Catholic Church is a homophobic institution more concerned with obedience than human flourishing." See here.

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

Clearly Deacon Duns has set himself in opposition to the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and has little interest in the truth that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (CCC, 1395).

Should this confused individual, who has shown contempt for Church teaching and a faithful Bishop of Christ's Church, be ordained to the priesthood?

Is this What passes for a sound candidate today?

Chilean priests demand resignation of Bishop alleged to have covered up for sexual abuser

The Associated Press is reporting that:

"A group of Chilean priests on Thursday demanded for the resignation of a bishop, accusing him of covering up for a prominent priest who sexually abused altar boys.

The priests and deacons in the southern city of Osorno made their request to Ivo Scapalo, the papal nuncio in Chile. They said newly appointed bishop Juan Barros Madrid covered up for the Rev. Fernando Karadima.

Victims have said Karadima began abusing them at his residence at the Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Santiago about 20 years ago, when they were between 14 and 17 years old."

Not long ago, speaking to a papal audience, Pope Francis  asked people to think about how they approach the Mass and what difference it makes in their lives and the lives of their parishes.

Do you go to Mass because it's a habit or a time to see your friends? the pope asked. "Or is it something more?"

"When we go to Mass, we find ourselves with all sorts of people," the pope said. "Does the Eucharist we celebrate lead me to consider all of them as brothers and sisters? Does it increase my ability to rejoice when they do and to weep with those who weep?"

Pope Francis told those present that, "it's not enough to say one loves Jesus; it must be shown in love for those he loved."

There are many who view Pope Francis' decision to appoint Rev. Robert J. Geisinger to be his chief prosecutor of serious church law violations, including child sexual abuse to be utterly insensitive and even despicable. See here. This because the Jesuit was himself one of several Catholic officials who allowed a notorious abusive priest to remain in ministry for years after learning of his long history of sexual abuses, legal documents show.

It's not enough to say that one loves Jesus.  Our love must be shown in love for those He loves.  Amen Pope Francis. Perhaps you could set the example here by offering more than lip service to the victims of sexual abuse?

Pope Francis and the Eucharistic fast...

In a review of Michael S. Rose's book entitled, "Goodbye, Good Men," Rev. Robert J. Johansen noted that, "There is too much evidence of the abuse of authority in certain dioceses and seminaries to dismiss Rose’s claims as baseless. It is still the case, even in a seminary with a reputation for orthodoxy such as St. Charles, that seminarians would not openly admit to members of the formation committee that they attended a licit (under the Ecclesia Dei indult) Tridentine liturgy for fear of being branded a “reactionary” and hounded out. I know many priests and seminarians who were subjected to harassment similar to that which Rose describes. I personally was turned away by a Midwestern seminary in the mid-1980’s for being “rigid”, “doctrinaire”, and “lacking in pastoral sensitivity.” These terms are recognized “code words” for describing seminarians and candidates who are loyal to Church teaching and discipline, and are attached to traditional forms of piety and devotion. The genius of using such terms is that they do have a legitimate use: There really is such a thing as being rigid or inflexible; there really are priests who lack sensitivity to people’s needs or situations. By co-opting and re-defining such words, those who wished to advance their own agenda were able to masquerade as agents of the Church. Rose is correct in identifying the existence of these people and their agenda and the damage they caused." See here.

"Rigid," "doctrinaire," "lacking in pastoral sensitivity," these are indeed code words used by liberals who are Catholic in name only and for whom the Church's precepts are merely "man-made rules." How significant then that Pope Francis should employ the code-word "rigid" to denounce Catholic priests who favored the Eucharistic fast, going so far as to compare them with Pharisees. See here.

Pope Francis is on the wrong track. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae) says that: "..our Catholic communities certainly do not lack people who could participate in Eucharistic Communion and do not, even though they have no serious sin on their conscience as an obstacle. To tell the truth, this attitude, which in some people is linked with an exaggerated severity, has changed in the present century, though it is still to be found here and there. In fact what one finds most often is not so much a feeling of unworthiness as a certain lack of interior willingness, if one may use this expression, a lack of Eucharistic 'hunger' and 'thirst,' which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature." (No. 11).

But His Holiness then addresses a more serious problem and one which is much more prevalent today [one which Pope Francis seemingly has no problem with]:

"However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, 'Let a man examine himself,' are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain." (No. 11).

The worthy reception of Holy Communion requires a clear conscience. Because of this, someone in the state of mortal sin is not eligible to receive: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415).

Not long ago, Fr. Catoir, hardly a model of Catholic scholarship or even common sense and good judgment [he has this in common with Francis apparently], wrote, "For centuries, the fear of eternal damnation, even for petty offenses, was taught in the name of religion. George Carlin, the late comedian, abandoned his faith because he saw the absurdity of believing in a God who would send you to hell for all eternity for eating meat on Friday. Many Catholics left the Church for the same reason. Winning them back will take a massive re-education process."

But as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Traditionally, the eucharistic fast, required by the Church for the sake of reverence, was considered a grave responsibility which did not admit of parvity. Now, since the requirement is more easily fulfilled, its violation is even harder to excuse...someone who deliberately disregards the eucharistic fast out of irreverence for Jesus or contempt for the Church's law plainly is guilty of grave sin. And, knowing that the fast has been broken , whether by accident or on purpose, in a significant way, anyone as reverent and obedient as he or she should be, will not receive Holy Communion except for a reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law (see CMP. 11.G. 6-7)."

Did George Carlin really leave the Church because he had a problem with the Church's traditional teaching regarding the Eucharistic fast or might not there have been other factors involved in his decision to abandon the Church of Christ? I seem to recall a troubled man who had serious personal problems and who celebrated the use of profanity with a levity which was just disturbing.

Pope John Paul II, in the same Dominicae Cenae, No. 7 writes, "I have already drawn attention to the close link between the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.."

This is not "rigidity." It's reverence. I would have thought Francis would know the difference. How disappointing that he doesn't.

Yes, the Pharisees were rigid when they chided the Apostles for not washing their hands before eating a common meal. But when we approach Our Eucharistic Jesus, we are not preparing for an ordinary meal. We are about to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Reverence is not rigidity. The so-called "rigidity" of the Catholic Church before Vatican II produced saints such as the Little Flower and Padre Pio.

We watered down the Eucharistic fast. We watered down liturgical rubrics and liturgical music. Reverence was jettisoned, labeled as "rigidity." Now even doctrine is being assailed.

Is the Church better off now than it was in Fulton Sheen's time? If you think so, I have news for you: You're insane.

An Open Letter to His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Prefect

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Piazza Pio XII 10

00193, Rome Italy

 

Your Eminence;

I am a Catholic in good standing and a member of the faithful in the Diocese of Worcester in the state of Massachusetts, U.S.A. I bring to you a serious concern that I and others have been unable to have properly addressed by His Excellency, The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of the Worcester Diocese

There is an extensive lack of respect and devotion toward Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, it might be characterized by an attitude of antipathy toward the Eucharistic Presence among the faithful which appears to be abetted or at least tolerated by many of the clergy, not least by His Excellency.

A major source of proof is the overall lack of silence in the presence of Our Lord reserved in the tabernacles of the churches in the diocese. It is a common and routine occurrence for people to chat, joke, and otherwise carry on as if in a social hall prior to and after the celebrations of Masses.

My own personal efforts, and I know of others who have also made a concerted effort to address
this scandalous sacrilege, have been of no avail in my communications with pastors and with
Bishop McManus. Indeed, I have been met with ridicule, intimidation or, in the Bishop's case – a silence of his own. In my most recent efforts I made a respectful approach to a number
of congregants of St. Vincent de Paul parish in the town of Balwinville, Massachusetts to prayerfully consider Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence as they chatted animatedly only a few meters from the tabernacle. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful and the pastor has done nothing to return peace and quiet to the church.  In fact, the pastor indicated that I would be ostracized for my efforts.  See here.

It seems to me that the remedy might be achieved when the clergy of the Diocese, led by His Excellency McManus, reach out to the faithful, of all ages, and instruct and renew true devotion so that the reality of God’s Presence among us is realized and a wonder-filled awe replaces the casualness of peoples’ attitude in church. I respectfully, ask Your Eminence to exhort Bishop McManus to guide his priests and flock in such an effort.

Respectfully,

Paul Anthony Melanson



Act of Reparation to the Blessed Sacrament
By St. Louis de Montfort


"Soupirons, gemissons, pleurons amerement"


Let me cry, let me weep bitter tears to God above,
For Jesus is abandoned in his Sacrament of love;
Forgotten and insulted in the dwelling of the Lord,
Derided and rejected where once he was adored.


The mansions of the nobles are all clean and set with care,
Yet the house of God's forgotten, its altars standing bare;
The floor is all broken, the roof lets in the rain,
The crumbling walls are marked with holes and every kind of stain.


The crucifix is broken, the pictures green with damp,
The altar cloths are rotting, no light burns in the lamp,
The missals torn and battered, the brasswork stained with rust,
The things of God are thrown about and scattered in the dust.


The ciborium is tarnished, the chalice turning black,
The monstrance, which is made of tin, is mouldy at the back;
From font right up to sacristy the picture is the same,
Such disorder in the house of God is our reproach and shame.


The pagans in their temples dare not spit upon the floor,
But in our church a crowd of dogs run in and out the door;
They bark and fight continually and fill the place with slime,
But no one cares enough of this to avenge the dreadful crime.


There is just one exception in all this sorry scene:
My Lord and Lady's special pew is always neat and clean;
And standing out in bright new paint upon the dingy wall
Their gaily-colored coat-of-arms looks down upon it all.


Above the Lord's own altar, instead of the Lord's own name,
The banners of his Lordship, a place of honor claim;
Both priest and mule are flaunting the badges of their thrall,
The former at the altar, the latter in his stall.


The houses of the nobles are so crowded and gay,
And fashionable young ladies are courted night and day;
But the Church of God's deserted, unless they condescend
To go to church for one short Mass they think will never end.


Behold the worldly cleric coming in with haughty face
How his lady friends admire him as he bows with courtly grace!
He bobs a genuflection, then seeks whom he should greet;
He strolls about and chatters as though walking in the street


Still worse, he has a snuff-box, which he opens with a jest,
And delicately takes a pinch, then passes around the rest
Puffed up with self-importance and with his graceful ways,
He squirms about and poses, making faces as he prays


Alas, it's often happened, the way to church he's trod
To pay reverence to Venus, to a goddess not to God;
Every thought and aspiration, every word and loving glance
Are but homage to a creature, a prayer to find romance


Behold upon the other side a sorry scene is played,
A shameless hussy sitting in all her fine brocade;
In her dainty little slippers and head-dress trimmed with lace,
Come simply to parade herself within the holy place


This empty-headed madam, with an impudence unknown,
Up to the very altar ostentatiously is shown,
And poses on a bench in front, so to be seen by all,
To captivate the eyes of men and hold their hearts in thrall


To think this devil's agent, while her knee to Jesus bends,
Must rob him of his glory and lead astray his friends!
The splendor of her finery the thought of Jesus harms,
Forgotten is the altar in the presence of her charms.


And if the time seems tedious, she always has her fan,
Her dog and gloves, to pass the time, and often her young man;
She'll read a bit, and roll her eyes, and fix her hat with care,
Then look around the chapel to see who's watching her


O strike them, God almighty, strike this ungrateful lot!
At least let them respect thee, if they will love thee not
Too long hast thou been patient; thy justice let them see;
Let fear replace that insolence with which they now mock thee


Thy glory has been ravished, dishonored is thy name,
Such sinners against thy majesty must bow their heads in shame
And yet restrain thy anger, at least a while I pray;
The greatness of their wickedness with greater good repay


Forgive them, dearest Jesus, for they know not what they do;
Remember thy great Passion, and have mercy on us too
And if we are unable to atone for all our guilt,
Accept our feeble homage, and treat us as thou wilt


We confess before thy altar that we are sinners still;
Thou canst punish us or spare us according to thy will
But remember thy great mercy and the tears that we have shed,
And hear our cries for pardon, for our hearts are full of dread.

 



From the Catholic Herald






 

Bishop Gerhard Mueller, the CDF's new Prefect, and the pillars of the Faith

It was Father Vincent Miceli who warned that, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer.  We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether.  The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion.  Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go.  Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi.  That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith.."

The Devil hates the Eucharist and Our Lady [recall how these two pillars played an important part in Don Bosco's prophetic dream as they stabilized the Church represented by a ship with Peter at the head] and never ceases to attack them.  He uses variations on gnosticism, symbolism and modernism to attack the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on the Holy Eucharist.  As the spiritual war continues to escalate all around us, the Devil's attacks against the Eucharist will multiply.  These attacks will intensify and reach a crescendo with the Man of Sin.  Do you doubt this?  Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, has already warned us that:

"The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, precisely as Daniel had predicted." ("Le Messa e l'Officio Strapazzati" in Opere Ascetiche).

Pope Benedict XVI has just named Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, who was a student of Father Gustavo Gutierrez (credited with founding Liberation Theology), to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  As this Blog post notes, Bishop Mueller has expressed some rather odd ideas regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the Holy Eucharist:

"On the Perpetual Virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary:


In his 900-page work "Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie" (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature."


On the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord in the transubstantiated Eucharistic species:

In 2002, bishop Müller published the book "Die Messe - Quelle des christlichen Lebens" (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In this book, he speaks of the Sacrament of the Altar and warns against using the terms "body and blood" in this context. These terms would cause "misunderstandings", "when flesh and blood are considered to mean the physical and biological components of the human Jesus. Neither is it simply the transfigured body of the resurrected Lord that is being designated."

Bishop Müller continues: "In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine."

Holy Communion transmits according to Müller a "community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver." Bread and wine thus only become "symbols of his salvific presence".


That is how Mgr Müller explains a "change of being" in the Eucharistic gifts:

"The essential definition of bread and wine has to be conceived in an anthropological way. The natural essence of these offerings [bread and wine] as the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, as the unity of natural and cultural products consists in clarifying the nourishment and sustenance of man and the communion of the people in the sign of a common meal [...]. This natural essence of bread and wine is transfigured by God in the sense that the essence of bread and wine is made to consist exclusively in showing and realizing the salvific communion with God."

Strange days.  Dark days.  The smoke of Satan has darkened many minds.

In his Encyclical Letter Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI warned us that, "..among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery [transubstantiation] in written or spoken word, there are some who, with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad such opinions as disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith, as if every one were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the approved import of the concepts involved." (No. 10).

Pope Paul VI goes on to warn in this important Encyclical that, "it is not allowable...to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning the marvelous changing of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ as stated by the Council of Trent, so that it consists in 'transignification' or 'transfinalization.' as they put it."

In No. 46 of Mysterium Fidei, the Pope explains:

"After transubstantiation has taken place, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary drink, but become the sign of something sacred, and the sign of a spiritual food.  However, the reason they take on a new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new 'reality' which we may justly term ontological."

This is the teaching of the Council of Trent regarding Eucharistic dogma: "In the first place the holy Synod teaches...that in the precious Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things."

This is the Church's authoritative teaching.  And, as Pope Paul VI said, no one is free to "consign to oblivion" this defined doctrine or to weaken the Church's teaching or the concepts involved.

Pray and watch.  For a diabolical disorientation is clouding minds.  The smoke of Satan continues to wreak havoc.

"...this desire to stifle the voice of God is rather carefully planned.."

John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was truly a prophet, warned more than a hundred years ago of the desolation which we are experiencing today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."


It is no secret today that the enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ. For, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer. We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether. The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion. Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go. Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi. That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith...."

The Devil hates the Eucharist and never ceases to attack Our Eucharistic Lord.  He uses variations on gnosticism, symbolism and modernism to attack the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on the Holy Eucharist.  As the spiritual war continues to escalate all around us, Satan's attacks against the Eucharist will multiply.  There will even be physical manifestations of this hatred.  These attacks will intensify and reach a crescendo with the Man of Sin.  St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explains that: "The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, precisely as Daniel had predicted." ("Le Messa e l'Officio Strapazzati" in Opere Ascetiche).

The Devil hates the Eucharist because, as St. Francis de Sales said, "Our Savior has instituted the most august sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains his flesh and blood in their reality, so that whoever eats of it shall live forever.  Therefore, whoever turns to it frequently and devoutly so effectively builds up his soul's health that it is almost impossible for him to be poisoned by evil affection of any kind."  The Devil hates the Eucharist because, "Surely such a stroke of love should be enough to awaken anyone from the slumber of indifference.  Let such a one reflect upon this Mystery and say to himself: 'It is God Almighty who will come down upon the altar at the words of consecration; I shall hold Him in my hands, and converse with Him, and receive Him into my breast.'" (St. John of Avila).  The Devil hates the Eucharist because, "The proper effect of the Eucharist is the transformation of man into God." (St. Thomas Aquinas).

It was Pope John Paul II who wrote, in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, "What else are the sacraments (all of them!) if not the action of Christ in the Holy Spirit?  When the Church baptizes, it is Christ who baptizes; when the Church absolves, it is Christ who absolves; when the Church celebrates the Eucharist, it is Christ who celebrates it: 'This is my body.'  And so on.  All the sacraments are an action of Christ, the action of God in Christ.  And therefore it is truly difficult to speak of the silence of God.  One must speak, rather, of the desire to stifle the voice of God...this desire to stifle the voice of God is rather carefully planned.  Many will do just about anything so that His voice cannot be heard, so that only the voice of man will be heard." (p. 126).

That certain men should strive to stifle the voice of God should not surprise us. Such men are only carrying out the wishes of their master (John 8: 44).

"The time I have spent before the tabernacle is the best spent time of my life."

"Jesus is in our tabernacles, and this fact we call the Real Presence. The same Jesus Who was sheltered by Mary Immaculate within Her virginal body, is in the little body of a white Host. The same Jesus Who was whipped, crowned with thorns, and crucified as a Victim for the sins of the world, remains in the ciborium in the Host as a Victim sacrificed for our salvation. The same Jesus Who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, where He now is gloriously reigning at the right hand of the Father, resides on our altars, surrounded by a multitude of countless adoring Angels — a sight that Blessed Angela of Foligno beheld in a vision.


Thus Jesus is truly with us. 'Jesus is there!' — The holy Curé of Ars could not finish repeating these three words without shedding tears. And St. Peter Julian Eymard exclaimed with joyful fervor, 'There Jesus is! Therefore all of us should go visit Him!' And when St. Teresa of Jesus heard someone say, 'If only I had lived at the time of Jesus ... If only I had seen Jesus ... If only I had talked with Jesus ...,' she responded in her spirited way, 'But do we not have in the Eucharist the living, true and real Jesus present before us? Why look for more?'

The Saints certainly did not seek for more. They knew where Jesus was, and they desired no more than the privilege of keeping inseparable company with Him, both in their affections, and by bodily presence. Being ever with our beloved — is this not one of the primary things true love calls for? Indeed it is; and, therefore, we know that visits to the Blessed Sacrament and the Eucharistic Benediction were the secret yet evident loves of the Saints. The time of paying a visit to Jesus is wholly the time of love — a love we will resume practicing in Paradise, since love alone 'does not come to an end' (1 Cor. 13:8). St. Catherine of Genoa made no blunder in saying, 'The time I have spent before the tabernacle is the best spent time of my life.'" (From Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, by Father Stefano Manelli, O.F.M., Conv., S.T.D.).

Are we cold toward Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?  Do we only visit Jesus when we need something or when we feel obliged?  Or do we visit Him for the best reason: because we want to be near Him? 

When we neglect Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, we hurt ourselves.  This because it is only through frequent visits to Jesus in the Eucharist that we are able to grow in that union with God which Jesus desires to bestow upon us in our daily lives.  Jesus is interested in our thoughts, our desires, our needs and hopes, our ambitions and our work.  Put simply: our daily lives are of the utmost importance to Him.  He is there for love of us.  And we should be there for love of Him.

Who else is always there for you?  Fickle men who praise you one day and denounce you the next?  Who else is as interested in you as the Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

He waits for you.  He waits for me.  Our sad world cannot hear Him as He says, "Could you not watch with Me for one hour"?

Are we indifferent?  Do we seek out the Eucharistic Jesus or do we prefer the noise of this dying world?

Pope Benedict XVI: Church needs purification

And that purification is coming.  Our Lady told Father Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that very soon, "there will come to completion that fullness of time beginning with La Salette all the way to my most recent and present apparitions; the purification will come to its culmination; there will come to completion the time of the great tribulation, foretold in Holy Scripture, before the Second Coming of Christ; the mystery of iniquity, prepared for by the ever-increasing spread of apostasy, will become manifest; all the secrets which I have revealed to some of my children will come to pass and all the events which have been foretold will take place."

Most people today have become numb.  Even most within the Church no longer believe in prophecy because certain prophecies have not been fulfilled within their timetable.  Such people forget that our first Pope warned that God does not "delay" but is patient as He waits for His children to return to Him.  But the time of mercy is quickly fading.

The Church will be purified.  Our Lady has said so.  And Christ's Vicar is saying that the Church needs purification.  More than ever, we must avail ourselves of the sacraments.  Now is the time to reconcile with God.  Receive the Lord Jesus in Holy Eucharist, confess your sins, pray every day (and especially the Rosary), adore Jesus in the Eucharist.

Time is running out.  The Dies Irae is approaching.  The Day which makes even the angels tremble.  We need not fear if we are striving to live a godly life and trust in the Lord Jesus.  But God will not be mocked.

Pope Benedict XVI: Sin, Satanic Influence and the Toleration of Evil Are at the Root of the priestly sexual abuse scandals

"The theology of the wandering people of God, who have 'no lasting city' here but are simply on their way to the Promised Land, to their inheritance, has here one of its basic starting points. The Eucharist is nourishment for pilgrims; Christ is the spiritual Rock, who is wandering along with us.....The Eucharist does not grant us any quasi-magical assurance of salvation. It always demands and involves our freedom. And therefore the risk of losing our salvation always remains; our gaze remains fixed on the judgment to come." (Pope Benedict XVI, Eucharist and Mission, Address given at the Eucharistic Congress of Como, September 10, 1997).

"..what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" (1 Corinthians 10: 20-22).

Saint Paul instructs us to "shun the worship of idols." (1 Corinthians 10: 14). Anything which takes the place of God is an idol: money, power, fame, lust. God does not want us to be partners with demons.

Communion on the tongue

Michael Brown has an article on this subject here. Communion on the tongue is the normative manner of receiving the Eucharist. Communion in the hand is allowed by indult (a sort of grudging permission if you will) and should never be presented as the preferred way of receiving. I just wrote the following letter to an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at my parish:



April 28, 2010



Re: Distribution of Holy Eucharist at .......................



Dear Ms. ...............,



This past Sunday you were serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and attempted to force me to receive in the hand. After pausing for almost half a minute, you let out a pronounced sigh as if you were irritated with me and then grudgingly gave me Communion on the tongue. Although Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church, it is permitted by indult. This amounts to a sort of grudging permission. The normative way of receiving is to receive on the tongue. (See document attached). *

The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship teaches clearly that, “The new manner of giving communion [in the hand] must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice..” And, “The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately…it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament.”

Since reverence is “owed to the sacrament,” an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist should not engage in attempts to force people to receive in the hand or display irreverence toward the Lord Jesus by engaging in rudeness which is directed toward those who prefer receiving on the tongue.

Again, the norm is to receive on the tongue. It is my hope that you will respect my right to receive in the traditional manner in the future.


Respectfully,

Paul A. Melanson

The Extraordinary Minister in question attempted to force Holy Communion into my hand. And when she couldn't, she let out an angry sigh and made me wait almost 30 seconds before giving me the Eucharist. This was highly disrespectful to Our Lord Who is truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament and amounted to an act of liturgical violence.

* Here.

The solution to all our problems is with us.....but we are not paying attention

It's not economic stimulus we need. It's a faith stimulus.


I wish I were the little key
That locks Love's captive in
And who lets Him out to go and free
A stricken heart from sin.


I wish I were the little bell
That tinkles for the Host,
When God comes down each day to dwell
With hearts He loves the most.


I wish I were the chalice fair
That holds the Blood of Love
When every flash lights holy prayer
Upon its way above.


I wish I were the little flower
So near the Host's sweet face,
Or like the light that half an hour
Burns on the shrine of grace.


I wish I were the altar, where,
As on His Mother's Breast,
Christ nestles, like a child , fore'er
In Eucharistic rest.


But oh, my God, I wish the most
That my poor heart may be
A home all holy for each Host
That comes in love to me.

How do we obtain this faith stimulus? The answer here: Matthew 7: 7.

An answer so simple that minds which are focused too much on material goods and the wonders of technology cannot see it.

"More to be blamed are the unworthy and wicked priests..."

Venerable Mary of Agreda was born on April 2, 1602, in Agreda, Spain. Christened Maria Fernandez Coronel, she took the blue habit and made her vows as a nun in the Franciscan order, and in 1627 she became abbess of the Agreda Franciscan monastery until her death on May 24, 1665. The process to declare her a saint began almost immediately after her death, in 1672, as she had lived a life of evident holiness in the eyes of her contemporaries. During her life, she had experienced mystical phenomena including private revelations.

The most famous of these writings is the Mystical City of God: Divine History of the Virgin, Mother of God, which had been dictated by the Virgin Mary Herself. Even after death, Sister Agreda continues to defy the rationalists and non-believers: her body, kept in her convent, is incorrupt. Like a small number of deceased mystics and Catholic saints, the nun's body refuses to naturally decay, even after 344 long years.

Our Lady said to Venerable Mary of Agreda:"More to be blamed are the unworthy and wicked priests; for by the irreverence with which they treat the Blessed Sacrament, the other Catholics have been drawn to undervalue it. If the people see that their priests approach the divine mysteries with holy fear and trembling, they too treat and receive their God in like manner. Those that so honor Him shall shine in heaven like the sun among the stars, for the glory of my Divine Son's humanity will rebound in a special measure in those who have behaved well toward Him in the Blessed Sacrament. The devout will bear on their breast, where they have so often harbored the Holy Eucharist, most beautiful and resplendent inscriptions, showing that they were most worthy tabernacles of the Holy Sacrament. They will also enjoy the special favor of being able to penetrate deeper into the mystery of the presence of the Lord in the sacrament, and to understand all the rest of the wonders hidden therein. This will be such a privilege that IT ALONE would suffice for their eternal happiness, even if there were no other enjoyment in heaven. Moreover, the essential glory of those who have worthily and devoutly received the Holy Eucharist will in several respects exceed the glory of the many martyrs who have not received the Body and Blood of the Lord."