Dissidents Urge Synod to Abandone Eucharist

[HMiS]

Well, there was one positive message:

 

An Eastern prelate, one Italian cardinal and many eastern rite and eastern-european Latin Rite bishops have commented, that the abuse of Communion in the Hand should be banned universally and that there should be a return to Communion on the tongue.

 

They said satanists thus can easily supply themselves with the Blessed Sacrament to commit sacrilege on it.

 

And they said COmmunion in the Hand diminished the faith in the Holy Eucharist. Another argument was that it would hinder Ecumenism with the (SCHISMATIC!) Eastern-Orthodox and their respectable liturgies and condemnations of Communion in the Hand.

 

But what do you expect?

 

I think the majority will declare these faithful bishops to be "nuts" and "conspiracy obsessed" and "out of touch with reality" for addressing satanism and the diminishing faith in the True Presence due to the abuse.

 

And why would you change this "glorious innovation" which is supposed to be the "ancient Christian practice" according to a false archeologism?

 
Do you really think they would condemn Communion in the Hand (an abuse which had spread from the Netherlands and Flanders to the rest of the world since the year 1964), when Pope Benedict XVI himself exclusively gave Communion in the hand in Cologne at the "New Springtime" World Youth Day 2005?

 

"Are you being more Catholic than the Pope, you nuts from Eastern-Europe?", will be a common liberalist opinion I fear.

 

After all "archconservative Ratzinger" would not give in to the practice, if it were an abuse, or would he?

 

The Synod is illustrating once again the deep splits and the deep division within the Modernist church.

 

Some are moderate, some in between (Benedict XVI) and many are ultra-Modernists and pro-One World Council of Religions.

 

There have already been calls to turn this synod into a Renewal pastoral Council next year to be able to study the problems more intensively in the home dioceses.

[philipmarus]

I just saw that old 1970s movie "The Confllict" with a Young Martin Sheen a few weeks ago. The film involves a Modernist Catholic Church that has become so involved in the Worldwide Ecumenical movement and the Church no longer requires Transubstantiation to be believed; hence the Church of Rome sends a Liberal Priest (Sheen) to a remote monastery in Ireland where the last Latin Mass is being said to get them to stop celebrating this Old Mass..  I apologoze of this plot summary for those familar to it, but as a New Traditionalist as I am but two chapters from finishing The Great Facade and I read news stories about the Synod I just have to wonder about the movie not being completely far fetched.

 

When I was a Neo-Catholic I had no idea whatsoever about Ecumenism. I thought it was just Dialoging with Protestants and not calling each other names. What little I knew about Assi I assumed was just an unintended abuse and The Reminant crowd were extreme in criticizing John Paul II. Now I see how Naive I was and am now a Reminant subscriber. I had no clue about the whole implications of Father Rahner ideas until very very recently.I had absolutely no idea as a Neo-Catholic that Rahner's theology implicit in the Vatican II documents meant that the Church of God was larger than Catholic Church and could include Non-Christians as well. I do not think very many Novus Ordo pew warmers realize this.

[Marybonita]

So, Philip, what convinced you to leave the "middle"? Your answer may give us hope.

 

By the way, welcome to the ....hmmm...catacombes.

 

In JMJ

[LeoXIII]

 

So, Philip, what convinced you to leave the "middle"? Your answer may give us hope.

 

By the way, welcome to the ....hmmm...catacombes.

 

In JMJ

 

I can't speak for him, but after years of being a conservative Catholic I can speak for myself.

 

Traditionalism seemed like something no one dared talk about but was wrong. Why? Because mama said so. There was this idea that if you read any of 'their' material you would be sucked in to schism (imagine that?). That you would be tempted almost by Satan himself and become a cafeteria Catholic (ahhh...the hamburger got me!).

 

Anyway, I'll post more when I get home.

[philipmarus]

Well, Since you asked...I could write a book on it ! 

 

I guess the main point is what I call Culture of Reprudiation.

 

I got in an argument over the Latin Mass on CA one time over Pro Multis. The Neo-Catholic Guy basically said that as long as a Priest stumbles into the Church (Even half-asleep) in the middle of the service and mumbles "This is my Body" and thats all - the Mass is not only valid but perfectly sufficient and orthodox in every way. I mean even take some as simple as the fact that at my Indult parish there are Rosaries attached to the back of the each Pew for you to use but at the Novus ordo I see there are none. Who made this change? I am assuming that rosaries were there in Pre-Vatican II since I was not alive then. Its not that you cannot bring your own Rosary and pray with it at the New Mass. Admittedly I could be wrong but this very subtle thing speaks volumes to me..The whole point is to de-emphasize certain things. Liturgical minimalism.

I had been to a lot of Protestant Churches growing up and everything about the New Mass more and more reminded me of a Protestant service. I read in Great Facade that Paul VI wanted to get closer to the Calvinist Mass and I believe it.  I began attending the Latin Mass and began to see the richness of it and everything so water downed in the New Mass.  What Happened to the High - Low Masss distinction. Then you get Neo-Catholics attacking the Old Mass on the same grounds that my Protestant family used all the time - 'the people don't understand Latin' ! About a year ago a member of my Protestant family charged that the reason Mel Gibson made The Passion of the Christ in the original languages (Aramaic/Hebrew/Latin) was to keep people from understanding like the Catholics did back in the "Dark Ages". Yeah Right. Then you get the enlightened Neo-Catholics on CA basically saying the same thing about the Immemorial Mass of Ages. What's wrong with this picture?

  I could not understand how all these Neo-Catholics I encountered on Catholic Answers Forums would so often try belittle the Old Mass in order prove the greatness of the new one. It seemed to me like we was sort reprudiating our Catholic heritage. I once read a thread on there (CA) in which a person I will call Lucy who claimed to been involved in the so-called "Liturgical Movement" at VII referred to the Old Mass by saying "I'm Glad Its Gone". I thought it was kind of funny how the Neo-Catholic believes in the Developement of Doctrine will quote the Angelic Doctor, Transubstantiation formulated during this time (Councils during 1200s, Trent, etc) yet thinks anything that organically developed in the Liturgy during the Middle Ages is "barnacles of encrustation" . I'm not an expert or Liturgist but I thought this was odd. I got in argument on CA Forums with someone a few months ago over the how the New Mass is a return to the pure primitive Church and the Latin Mass of the Middle Ages is a source of corruption. Yet Adrian Fortesque in his book the Mass points out that the Creed and Gloria were not added to the Liturgy until the 6th and 11th Centuries. Why not throw that out too then as part of the "barnacles of encrustation" purged by the Novus Ordo prurification?

 

Its hard to tell where the ideas of the "Middle way" Conservatives end and the progressives begin - There's a great blurring in my experience. I have subscribed to The Latin Mass magazine for about a year but only recently subscribed to the Reminant and I'm waiting for my first issue. When I began to see that a lot of writers of Latin Mass also wrote to for that "Harsh, Extreme Reminant" I realized I need to look at it a little bit closer.

 

I know this long Post.

God Bless

[LeoXIII]

I am curious though. How many of us were always Traditionalists (or the better term, Restorationalists)?

 

 

[Reese]

Well, Philip, I don't know if this is an overall indication of the NO  attitude towards the rosary, but it did happen in this circumstance in  an NO parish.  My mother was talking to the priest of our parish  at that time about the rosary.  He quickly dismissed her with,  "Oh, the rosary, mumble, mumble."  He didn't mumble but actually  said mumble, mumble.  I don't think he was in favor of praying the  rosary. 
 

[philipmarus]

Here is two quotes from the Synod I just got from the Vatican Information Service this morning

 

BISHOP EDWARD OZOROWSKI, AUXILIARY OF BIALYSTOK, POLAND. "The Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, brings the sacrifice of the cross into the present day. The sacrifice is the 'primum principium' of the Eucharist and creates a hierarchy of all the truths related thereto. ... Eucharistic teaching underlines many important themes: banquet, communion, listening to the word of God, sacrament, etc., however these themes lack a 'keystone.' One consequence of this is a certain 'protestantization' of the theology of the Eucharist, which such teaching reveals as being a beautiful rite, but one with little meaning for life. Yet it is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, to which man has access through the Eucharist, that is most important in this mystery. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross brought salvation to humanity. ... Thanks to the Eucharist, sacrifice in human life is transformed into the sacrifice of Christ. Only by walking the path of the cross can we reach the glory of the resurrection."

 

 

 

ARCHBISHOP ANTHONY SABLAN APURON O.F.M. Cap., OF AGANA, GUAM. "In the Pacific, the scarcity of priests and the aggressiveness of the evangelistic sects are challenging the very survival of the Catholic faith. In my experience, the only answer to this double predicament is to 'form communities based on faith,' as Pope Benedict told the youth in Cologne. ... Today, the Church needs to make clearly visible the signs of the Eucharist: maybe the Church needs to restore the 'breadness' of the bread which becomes the Body of Christ to be eaten by all, and wine drunk by all which becomes the Blood of Christ. These signs fully and powerfully represent the reality that they signify and not just approximate them. ... I urge leaders of the Church today, to do everything possible to help people come to really know Jesus Christ through the signs of the Eucharist and the reality they signify."

 

 

I'm not sure what he means by this. I am no expert on history of the breadness used at mass.  I can vouce for the aggressiveness of Protestant sectsin my extended family.

The Great Facade on Pg. 338 refers to the "de-missionization of the Catholic Church" and "Suicide of Missions" that has taken place since the late 1960s. I myself have become skeptical of Benedict XVI since eveything I read coming out of Rome the last few months is  Ecumenism Ecumenism Ecumenism. That "Multiplicity in Unity" stuff coming out of WYD makes me think its no wonder Protestant sects are growing in Latin America and elsewhere.

[Marybonita]

Leo: When I entered the traditional community after a short stay in the "mushy middle" it was approximately 10 years ago. Over those years the majority of older Catholics who had been with the movement from the beginning have passed on to their reward. It reminds me of Moses and the Hebrews and their 40-year wanderings.

 

There seems to be a shift now to a new generation. See the thread under Pig Roast which has been started so that each can tell his/her story of "conversion".

 

Reese: I once asked a NO priest to bless my new Rosary. It was beautifully made in Ireland of stone from Connamerra (sp?). After some argument, he took the Rosary in his hands, cupped them, shook the beads, then handed them back with the comment "There, now how's that?" Hmmm...as a matter of fact, quite scandalous.

 

In JMJ

[Reese]

 

Reese: I once asked a NO priest to bless my new  Rosary. It was beautifully made in Ireland of stone from Connamerra  (sp?). After some argument, he took the Rosary in his hands, cupped  them, shook the beads, then handed them back with the comment "There,  now how's that?" Hmmm...as a matter of fact, quite scandalous.

   

 

 

 
  MissMaryBonita, that his simply awful!  And the hierarchy wonder  why they are losing faithful?  I think he needed a little more  than one of these