Bishop suspends FSSP over communion in the hand

[Petertherock]

This is why the SSPX must not submit to NO Bishops at all cost, and further more, why it's a sin to go to a NO Mass...

Due to concern over spread of H1N1, the Bishop of Calgary has ordered all parishes to suspend communion on the tongue. The local FSSP parish has refused and are now suspended from offering Mass until further notice.

Full email chain follows:

-----

From: [parvenu74]
Sent: November 30, 2009 10:09 AM
To: bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca
Subject: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?

Dear Bishop Henry,

On the front page of your diocese's website, I see there is a letter in which you are forbidding the distribution of communion on the tongue due to H1N1 concerns. Separately, I have heard that you have forbidden the Parish of Saint Anthony's in Calgary, which is serviced by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, to offer Mass using the Missal of 1962 because that Rite of Mass is incompatible with communion given in the hand.

Is this true?

-----

From: Bishop F.B. Henry <bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca>
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?



Dear Michael

The Fraternity ahs informed me that they are unable to comply with the directives in my pastoral letter re reception of communion. Therefore, the Latin Mass will be suspended until the temporary sanctions have been lifted as recommended by the Medical Officer of Health.

Peace, Bishop Henry



November 25, 2009
Rev. C. Blust, FSSP
St. Anthony’s Parish
5340 4th St. SW
Calgary, AB, T2V 0Z5

Dear Fr. Blust and My Brothers and Sisters of the Latin Mass Community of St. Anthony’s

The sacraments (and sacramentals – like holy water) are entrusted by Christ to the church which is responsible for determining through regulation the manner of their proper celebration. The bishop is the chief liturgist in the local church or diocese. In the event of a pandemic, we ought to try to reduce the possibility of transmission of a virus and protect the faithful – also the body of Christ. Our current liturgical restrictions in Calgary aim to do precisely that . This is a difficulty for some but we must remember that a Catholic spirituality is not an individual affair but communitarian from the get-go. For the love of our brothers and sisters we have mandated the sacrificing of a personal preference in the manner of Eucharistic reception for a temporary period.

Receiving communion on the tongue is not a dogma of faith. Nor is it an absolute. Since the Eucharistic Celebration is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in keeping with the Lord's command, his Body and Blood should be received by the faithful who are properly disposed as spiritual food. In the Diocese of Calgary, all the faithful may receive communion on the tongue or in the hand - this also applies to the faithful who choose to celebrate the Eucharist with the Latin Mass community at St. Anthony’s, Calgary and St. Patrick’s, Medicine Hat. However, due to the current N1H1 pandemic and in accordance with recommendations received from the Medical Officer of Health, communion on the tongue is temporarily suspended.

I want to be perfectly clear: no one is to be denied the Eucharist, what is at issue is the manner of reception.

Participation in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is a source and means of grace even apart from the actual reception of Holy Communion. It has also been long understood that when circumstances prevent one from receiving Holy communion during mass, it is possible to make a spiritual communion that is also a source of grace. Spiritual communion means uniting oneself in prayer with Christ’s sacrifice and worshiping him present in his Body and Blood.

Nevertheless, the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.

Wishing you all the best, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.

I've been tipped off to this letter from the CDF stating that it's not licit to deny communion on the tongue and have forwarded it to His Excellency. I'll post his reply.

His excellency has replied:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bishop F.B. Henry
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?


I am well aware of what the congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine.

[Petertherock]

This is my note to the Communist Bishop...Maybe I should have been more respectful but I wasn't feeling very respectful. I had a little respect as I was going to call him "Mr. Henry" instead of "Bishop Henry" but since he is a Bishop, and I would even give Protestants the respect of calling them "Ministers" then I should at least respect his title even if I can't respect him...

Dear Bishop Henry:
 
You must either allow Communion on the tongue or resign from office. You have made yourself the Pope. You are not the Pope. The Pope is Pope Benedict XVI and the Pope has made it clear it is the preferred way to receive Communion on the tongue.
 
Furthermore, it is a lot more sanitary and hygienic to receive Communion on the tongue. When done properly, the priests hands never come in contact with the communicant. However, during the sacrilege of Communion in the hand, not only do particles of Our Lord end up being trampled under people's foot, but the priests hands almost always touch the hand. You and your ilk are the reason I will never set foot in a Novus Ordo Mass. You are committing grave sin and you must immediately repent and rescind this command. You have no business making this ruling. Hopefully the SSPX will come into town and the faithful Catholics will not have to follow your nonsense. I am just thankful I am not in your diocese or even your country. You have no authority to unilaterally make this decision. You are the one that is no longer in Communion with the Church. 

[Padre_Ricardo]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Why is it a mortal sin to attend a NO Mass?  Nothing in this e-mail exchange supports such an assertion.

[Petertherock]

OK, it may not be a mortal sin, but it's at least a venial sin...

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

[Scipio_a]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Why is it a mortal sin to attend a NO Mass?  Nothing in this e-mail exchange supports such an assertion.

Been  discussed thoroughly on other threads...but it boils down to the very least..the sin of scandal...which is cause by the NO and our attendance of it...since if we attend, we appear to be giving our OK to it....abuse that it is...even when valid.

Other scenarios get worse.



About the FSSP in Alberta...sad...but that was the choice those guys made...they have a hard fight, I hope they are able to make some inroads...but in the meantime in Calgary you could always go here...

http://www.sspx.ca/Alberta/ImmaculateHeart.htm

[Petertherock]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Why is it a mortal sin to attend a NO Mass?  Nothing in this e-mail exchange supports such an assertion.

I changed it from mortal sin to just a sin.

[Petertherock]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Why is it a mortal sin to attend a NO Mass?  Nothing in this e-mail exchange supports such an assertion.

Been  discussed thoroughly on other threads...but it boils down to the very least..the sin of scandal...which is cause by the NO and our attendance of it...since if we attend, we appear to be giving our OK to it....abuse that it is...even when valid.

Other scenarios get worse.



About the FSSP in Alberta...sad...but that was the choice those guys made...they have a hard fight, I hope they are able to make some inroads...but in the meantime in Calgary you could always go here...

http://www.sspx.ca/Alberta/ImmaculateHeart.htm

Good to see the SSPX are already there. Maybe, this will be what is needed to unite the SSPX and the FSSP once again so they can fight the NO disease both together. I don't know if that would ever happen, but it would be a good thing.

[timjp77]

While communion of the faithful is a very important part of Mass, it's not essential.  Can't the FSSP continue to offer Mass without having communion of the faithful?

[franklinf]

Scary. Thought the SSPXers were crazy at times w/ their talk about being forced to do certain things by NO bishops. Certainly lends credence to the state of emergency arguments.

Hopefully CDF intervenes. Even though the Bishop holds them w/ little regard.

[Scipio_a]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Why is it a mortal sin to attend a NO Mass?  Nothing in this e-mail exchange supports such an assertion.

I changed it from mortal sin to just a sin.

Well...the fact is that it could be...as I alluded to above....if we know the "priest" is using improper matter or form and he knows it....and he knows we know it...then it is a mortal sin since he would be passing out a "Well Worshiped Wheat Wafer" and we would be idolaters at that point.

Stay safe...

[NonSumDignus]

The problem here is not the NO, or traditional groups in communion with Rome, it's bishops overstepping their authority.

[Scipio_a]

Good to see the SSPX are already there. Maybe, this will be what is needed to unite the SSPX and the FSSP once again so they can fight the NO disease both together. I don't know if that would ever happen, but it would be a good thing.

I actually see the separation as a good thing...it gives the "work from the inside crowd" a chance...and gives the Chair hugers a home if they just can't make the leap it takes to go all the way...can be scary for folks.

This just as I see the separation of the SSPV from the SSPX good since if the SSPX sells out (not likely...but possible) then there is one more line in the sand that the Modernists will not be able to destroy, because the SSPV ain't goin' to be talkin' to anyone in the Vatican machine.

[Scipio_a]

The problem here is not the NO, or traditional groups in communion with Rome, it's bishops overstepping their authority.

LOL...is this a joke?    It's all the same thing.

[Petertherock]

The problem here is not the NO, or traditional groups in communion with Rome, it's bishops overstepping their authority.

LOL...is this a joke?    It's all the same thing.

Move along folks, no crisis here...

[Dauphin]

The problem here is not the NO, or traditional groups in communion with Rome, it's bishops overstepping their authority.

LOL...is this a joke?    It's all the same thing.

Move along folks, no crisis here...

I think a case could be made for a state of emergency within the Diocese of Calgary. However, it goes too far to extend this to the universal church or to the situation of the FSSP in general.