No Standing on Ceremony

On 27 April 1977 horrified lay people ran a full-page ad in the Hartford Courant detailing reports of sacrilege collected by an editor in Zurich:

"In a restaurant, some young people cut a Host into pieces to see if the Blood would run, then they threw it into the toilets...In a dry-cleaning establishment, we found the Consecrated Host in a boy’s trousers. The boy admitted receiving it in a round-about fashion thanks to distribution of Communion-in-the-hand…A woman who attended daily Mass twice-a-day in two different churches observed a man who also attended Mass in these two different churches and who received Communion each time. The woman denounced this act to the Vicar General whom she knew well. They found this man’s address and apprehended him one day as he was leaving his residence. The package that he was carrying was opened; it contained seventeen Hosts! Upon being questioned, he named those who had given him this work and said he was given francs for each host...In Holland some students were conducting a flourishing trade in consecrated Hosts, thanks to Communion given in the hand. They collected them and arranged them on the wall like butterflies. About 200 Hosts were found, transpierced in this manner. In 2008 a biology professor at the University of Minnesota P Z Myers advertised for consecrated hosts, desecrated them by soiling and stabbing with a knife, then posted the pictures on his blog. But hate crime is for Christians not for those who hate Christians and no charges have been pressed. Communion in the hand facilitates this kind of thing. Woe to priests who are in complicity because silence is consent.

Even papal Masses permit the Communion in the hand sacrilege. Consider this testimony by renowned convert, former Presbyterian minister, Gerry Matatics. He attended the papal Mass at World Youth Day in 1993.

"We had camped out the night before on the ground to be sure that we would have a place for the papal Mass. We all had grimy faces and "sleeping-bag" hair. The assisting priests who were to distribute Holy Communion, implementing inculturation, accommodated themselves to the heat and humidity by wearing t-shirts, shorts, flip-flops and baseball caps along with their stoles. Priests similarly attired were listening to confessions beforehand. The crowd had been roped off into quadrants, about a hundred of us in each one. When the time came for reception of Holy Communion I knelt at the front of my little quadrant in an attempt to receive the Sacred Host on my knees. Hosts were being distributed from big shallow bowls that could have been used for punch or potato chips. People were reaching over each other’s shoulders to grab the consecrated Hosts from the priests. I saw Hosts falling into the mud, where they were being trampled on. I reached down and rescued as many as I could and consumed them. I had been going to the Tridentine Mass since the fall of 1992 and the Novus Ordo on weekdays. At that moment, I realized that if this kind of sacrilege could occur at a papal Mass because of the Novus Ordo rubrics, I could no longer be a party to the new liturgy. It was the last Novus Ordo Mass I ever attended."

Michael Matt, editor of Remnant, offered further testimony. "At the outdoor papal Mass in Des Moines during the papal visit of 1980, consecrated Hosts were being distributed from cardboard boxes. A group of Hell’s Angels was given Holy Communion-in-the-hand. I saw them washing down the Body of Christ with cans of beer. I was only a child then, but I will never forget that awful sight as long as I live." "They bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men's shoulders but with a finger of their own they will not move them."

People who attended World Youth Day remarked that though there were many sessions called Catechesis (meaning teaching the faith) there was little or no teaching only testimonies. The impact on catechetics of the so-called reform has been catastrophic producing successive generations of nominal Catholics who as far as the essential beliefs are concerned are illiterate. Despite appearances, spectaculars like World Youth Day are essentially deceptions producing no lasting spiritual gain but only buying time for time-servers and impostors. They are pentecostal in spirit. They have the euphoria of the crowd, there is what Isaiah called the spirit of giddiness in their midst. Wordsearch Sydney or Sodom by Chris Ferrara exposing what innocent youth could not see but were lured unwittingly into partaking in. Stations of the Cross prayers called Jesus a "believer" entailing the heresy of Arianism. God is no believer, he is omniscient. The prayers said souls "return" to heaven. The truth is souls are created at conception, have no pre-existence, but once conceived are permanent, for better or worse. And all this presided over by a pope who empathised with the young but showed discomfort toward the earthly ceremonies and unChristian prayers. But what can a poor Pope do? The young people at World Youth Day were full of love of God but benignly unaware of the fallen and corrupt state of church authorities. From the bishops and priests and the half-million young people down to the reporters, cameramen, gardeners and groundsmen, what took place may have invisibly wounded each soul. No one can save their soul by doing what they did. If they really believed in the presence of the King of kings as the living bread come down from heaven, would they trample him underfoot? If they really believed, would they handle with their fingers then unthinkingly drop the sacred crumbs in the mud?

In June 1982 six Canadian Catholics knelt to receive Communion on the tongue in their parish church. They ended up being arrested by police for "wilfully disturbing the solemnity of a church service." The charge arose from their refusal to comply with a directive that only those who received Communion standing would be served it. A provincial court found them guilty and placed them on six month's probation, but on appeal to the Supreme Court quashed the ruling. The message is that the Pope is trying to keep together what are two quite distinct religions operating under the name of Catholic: the unchanging traditional-orthodox and the local cultural get-together thing.

Weapon of Mass Destruction

The bringing of divine worship down to earth was the hallmark of World Youth Day and of the Second Vatican experiment with worship as a whole. This treading down was the weapon of Mass destruction. It destroyed the souls of millions by destroying their faith. Not only that of those it caused to leave the Church but also of those who stayed. The revolutionary and diabolical disorientation of the Mass, with man and earthly things replacing God and celestial things, was competently explained by Owen Roberts in a 1972 Remnant article entitled Music in the Mass, see below. The tragedy is that the desacralizing lobby kept their control of the dioceses. They made sure there was nothing left after their departure. Scorched earth policy. They continued to do the same dirty work as described in the Roberts article, with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope having minimal impact in stopping the sacrileges. Possibly because he himself had been among those implicated in the revolution. Roberts followed the word "Mass" with "(sic)" implying that he could see that it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was present at any of those Masses. Because whatever they were, the Anglican Mass of the modern Catholic church is a service not a sacrifice. Once again St Paul's words resound in his warning and description of the regime of Antichrist: "Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there first come a revolt [rendered as "apostacy" as in the Third Secret of Fatima and other prophecies about the same events] and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God." As in gods of the New Age and as in priests who sat in the central place where the Tabernacle had been before they downgraded and uncrowned the King of kings. For proof of the occult even hellish origins of the words of the New Mass wordsearch Pinay Heimbichner.

In churches today there is no respect for Jesus. They are like social halls, where everybody talks, laughs and giggles. Shaking and waving of hands! What is this? A social affair. All sense of the sacred has disappeared. But why not, since the Liturgy is now a meal and a banquet where practically everybody gets or grabs a Sacred Host, regardless of the spiritual condition of the soul. Confessional boxes are collecting dust and cobwebs. Everybody seems to have been immaculately conceived. There is no sin or hell today. Everybody is going to heaven!

Virtual "canonisation services" are conducted at funerals. Even purgatory is no longer preached today. These Roman Protestants do not believe in praying for the dead. They have deleted the books of the Bible that spoke of it. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins"--Second Book of Maccabees.

Do you see priests wearing black vestments at the requiem Mass? You don't, for black indicates mourning and sadness, while white indicates happiness, for the soul is "already in heaven." Not Mass stipends but rather "memorials" for cancer or heart research are requested. Catholics are being gradually protestantized in their churches by their own bishops and priests, just as happened in England and Germany in the 16th century Reformation. Communion in the hand is a sure way to destroy reverence and faith, especially in children. A great chastisement seems to be about to befall the entire world. Nature is warning. When will the people rise from their apathy and indifference? Will they go down on their knees to ask God for mercy and forgiveness in time?

Do It Yourself Communion by Fr Frederick Hauser

Do you look at something you have seen hundreds of times and really see it for the first time? Perhaps it is a bush that has been dormant all winter and all of a sudden it's ablaze with color, or a child who you have known for years all of a sudden is an adolescent. Very often we need someone to point these things out to us or we will never see them with our mind's eye. That sort of thing happened to me recently when I read an article on Communion in the hand in which the author pointed out what should have been obvious all along: the person who receives in the hand is his own minister of the Eucharist. Now one thing the Church has always stressed is that a sacrament is administered by a duly authorized minister. Matrimony, of course, is always administered by the couple to each other. But when a person received Communion in the hand, he administers the sacrament to himself. Normally only the celebrant gives Communion to himself. Assisting ministers, clerical or lay, have the sacrament administered to them. To show the incongruity of a person administering holy communion to himself, let's apply it to the other sacraments. In the sacrament of Baptism, the priest or deacon administers the sacrament by pouring the water on the head of the recipient while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Could you envision a priest handing the shell of water to the adult to be baptized and watching him pour the water over his own head while saying the form "I baptize me, etc."? Or in the confessional, after the penitent has confessed his sins, the priest handling him the formula while the penitent says, "I absolve me from my sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen"? The idea is ridiculous and theologically unsound, and, of course, the sacrament would be invalid and illicit. But we are doing this every time we give a person Communion in the hand. Ironically, our bishops have forbidden the custom of a person dipping his own Host in the Precious Blood and consuming it, saying that the Blood is not administered to him but he administers It to himself. If they were consistent they would see he is administering the Host to himself also. We cannot administer a sacrament to ourselves. That is not an option we can extend to anyone. We must get back to administering Holy Communion on the tongue and under the form of Bread alone.

Mass or Mess

Among the many who no longer go to church, some say it is because they do not believe it is a Mass. They say that the reform destroyed both the Mass and the rites of ordination of priests and bishops back in the 1960s and 1970s. Few people realise that the new Mass is neither a simple translation of the old Latin rite into the common speech, as some bishops and media pretended, nor is it a completely new choreogrpahy constructed by the freemasonic Cardinal Hannibal Bugnini and his team of six Protestant advisers. What it really is was shown by Michael Davies in his book Pope Paul's New Mass, basically the translation into Latin (and thence to other languages) of the Anglican rite of "Holy Eucharist" which had in turn been a translation from the German of Father Martin Luther's rite of the Lord's Supper. Luther and the reformed Catholics completely removed the Offertory prayers and replaced them with prayers taken from the Jewish Talmud for the blessing of food. Luther and the Anglicans and now the Catholics took out all mention of sacrifice to atone for sin which is what the old Mass was, the holocaust sacrifice of bread and wine at the altar of incense. Many of those who no longer go to church say the new Catholic priests are not actually priests. Their argument is that the form used in the new rite of ordination was already declared invalid and incapable of confecting the priesthood in an encyclical called Apostolicae Curae by pope Leo XIII. That pope had been asked to clear up whether the Anglicans' rite of ordination was effectual. He said it was powerless even when a validly consecrated Anglican bishop (if that were possible) ordained a candidate to the priesthood and both had the intention of making him a priest of the one, holy, Roman, apostolic and Catholic church (if that were possible). The reason is that the form or words used are not sufficient to ordain, the Pope said. Now if the new Catholic form of ordination is a copy of the Anglican form of ordination, then the new Catholic priests are not actually priests and therefore have not absolved anyone from his sins nor is the bread and wine at your average Sunday Mass transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ but remains just bread and wine. Therefore, they would argue, there are no sacred crumbs on the floor of such churches and it is only bread that these people are worshipping, if worship is what they do.

Story of New Religion

The modernist is clever enough to avoid direct confrontation between the new and the old. He presents the new as though it were the enrichment of an under-nourished way of thinking now surpassed by the new concepts. Almost all words--redemption, grace, revelation, sacrament, mystery, take on a new meaning. In the Church's life, this process is particularly striking in the case of the new liturgy, which in its physical movements centres upon man, and is no longer hierarchically directed through the priest towards God. Sacrifice is no longer mentioned, being replaced by Eucharist, a word that used to apply only to the consecrated host, henceforth the emphasis is on the meal. In these very changes we see the origin of today's collapse of what still remained of Christendom, and the cause of the present crisis of the Catholic Church. Religious liberty is radically incapable of standing up to the wave of secularisation sweeping through the modern world, the world in effect without God, making itseld into God. For the creature having once cut off its dependence on its Creator in order to establish its autonomy and liberty, it has no further basis for its intrinsic and absolute dependence on its God. So to save the human person from the totalitarianism of the modern state, the creature has sought to establish that the person and its liberty are superior, at which point it can no longer reconcile this very real liberty with the absolute dependence on God. Then perforce sin as the misfortune of the creature rebelling against its Creator, is no longer understood, the creature's responsibility becomes very vague and the Redemption as God's answer to that misfortune is turned inside out. The whole life of man becomes much easier. God's commandments are consigned to oblivion. All discipline, strictness, austerity and renunciation fade away. Once the human person's greatness is affirmed is affirmed in this way, his relation with his God, which is his religion, will take on a completely different look. This new look at the person and his acts seeks to be so positive and such an effort is made to discover "seeds of the Word" in all directions, that the idea that everybody is saved is now firmly implanted in numbers of Catholic' minds, and all the ecumenical celebrations and inter-religious declarations merely go to corroborating this new vision of life. The effect if not the intention is a frightening spread of the belief that it does not matter what religion one belongs to. Rome is concerned above all to establish unity. All their efforts are going in that direction. One bold, shocking, scandalous act follows another in their attempt to draw together Christians disunited and torn apart. The determination to overcome doctrinal differences by liturgical acts in common very much expresses this new ecumenical thrust. One cannot help thinking they wish to give secondary importance to questions of truth in order to get on with living. By Bishop Bernard Fellay.

Boykott: Stop Remunerating Them

When will Catholics wake up? Rome has fallen from the Faith, the only faith that saves. The Church today is a hole, a lack of everything the saints and Jesus Christ established. What is lacking is what is essentially Catholic. The beauty and dignity is gone, essential to the worship and adoration of God. "My house is desolate and you make haste every man to build his own house"--Book of Aggeus or Haggai. Gone are truthful and challenging sermons leading to compunction of heart and conversion. "Now when they heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, What shall we do, men and brothers? But Peter said to them: Do penance and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins." Gone is the introduction of believers to the spiritual life, the conversion of non-Catholics for eternal life, the concern to bring back to the lost of the flock. The desperate situation has triggered an exodus out of the one true Church and into every schism and sect. There people imagine they find more reverence and pastoral care and love and faithfulness. But these are only another snare of the devil. The hireling shepherds that control the true bastion of faith are--one can judge by their actions--intent upon gradually destroying it. Catholics are too nice to impute evil intent to their popes and priests. Culpable blindness. Do they not deserve to lose their Church and the Faith? They have not defended the honour of the Lord against the hireling but ingratiated themselves even when their rights were being trampled on. False obedience is the thing that has destroyed the Church. Until Catholics find ways to eject these impostors, their own families will desert the Faith. And they all went to hell together. As Jesus said. "For when the blind lead the blind they both fall into the pit together." Meanwhile little concessions to tradition and truth are made to appease concerned conservatives and keep them obedient. Like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. The only hope is boykott.

Method in Mad Mass by Michael Davies

The Protestant Reformers were sensitive to the symbolism of liturgical ceremonies and particular attention was paid to eliminating anything which could perpetuate belief in a sacrificing priesthood possessing powers denied to the laity and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

In his 1549 Communion Service, Cranmer allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent.

The reasons Bucer gives for insisting on this change are quite unambiguous:

"I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist. As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed--as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth--which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason. In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand."

The Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny the Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence. Now the Catholics have adopted something that is anti-Catholic.

Pope Handlers' Upper Hand

The chief reformer Archbishop Bugnini in his work The Liturgical Reform candidly relates the history of his and his comrades' introduction of the practice of giving Communion in the hand. It was illegally introduced first in Germany, Holland, Belgium and France.

The Pope opposed it. On 12 October 1965 the Consilium wrote to Cardinal Alfrink: "preserve the traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion...the Holy Father...does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts...that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world."

The Pope was ignored. On 8 May 1968 the Sacred Congregation of Rites answered "it is not expedient." But due to insistent requests, the Pope or at least the Vatican decided the concession be granted to Episcopal Conferences that requested it.

The letter from the Secretary of State 3 June 1968 read: "His Holiness considers, in effect, that the bishops must be reminded of their responsibility so that they may prevent, with opportune norms, the inconveniences and moderate the indiscriminate spread of this practice which is not contrary to the doctrine but, in practice, is very disputable and dangerous."

Cardinal Gut in an interview published 20 July 1969 said: "Until now bishops were allowed to authorize practices, but the limits have frequently been violated and many priests have simply done whatever they wanted to do. In this case, what has sometimes occurred is that they have imposed their own points of view. These initiatives, taken without authorization, frequently could not be suppressed because they had spread too widely. With his great kindness and prudence, the Holy Father has frequently ceded, and many times he has done so against his will."

The Pope feared what would happen. In the "status quaestionis" circular to bishops these fears were spelled out.

1. It is an important disciplinary change that runs the risk of disorienting many of the faithful who do not see the need, and who have never met with this problem. There are already many changes in the field of liturgy and of the sacraments that have yet to be completely assimilated by all of the Christian community; the establishment of a new manner of receiving Communion would require a serious catechetical instruction that cannot be carried out at the same time all over.

2. It appears that there is a new practice established here and that it is the work of a small number of priests and laypersons that look to impose their own point of view on others, and force the hand of authority. To approve it would be to encourage these persons who are never satisfied with the laws of the Church.

3. And above all a decrease of respect to the Eucharistic worship should be feared. To receive Communion in the hand would seem to many to be less dignified and less respectful. Will everyone who will receive Communion in the hand have clean hands? The children also?

4. One should also ask oneself, with uneasiness, if the fragments of the Consecrated Bread will always be picked up and consumed with all the respect It deserves. If even now, when a paten is used, it is so easy that fragments fall and are dispersed, what will happen to the Particles in the hands of the faithful, of those who do not have the delicacy and the awareness to quickly pick them up?

5. Furthermore, should not an increase of desecrations and irreverences on the part of ill-intentioned persons be feared, or of those of little faith? Ill-prepared and poorly instructed people who receive the Eucharistic Bread in their hand, will they not end up equating It to ordinary bread, or to simply blessed bread?

6. By easily giving in to this very important point of Eucharistic worship, the danger exists that the audacity of the 'renovators' will dare so much as to be directed towards other sectors, which would bring about an irreparable damage to the faith and worship of the Eucharist."

It is claimed the Pope succumbed to pressure and decided to concede the practice to the Bishops' Conferences. The real purpose of the Pope in his decree Memoriale Domini was not to be instrumental for the adoption of Communion in the hand but rather to maintain its prohibition.

The introduction of this change is of enormous importance because, given that the treatment of the Eucharist is educational, the lack of preoccupation for the Particles damages the faith.