Tuesday, 22 June 2021

THE NOVUS ORDO COULD BE TO BLAME FOR THE WOES OF THE CHURCH

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.


"The reformed liturgy (the Novus Ordo or New Mass) simply lacks whole dimensions of the traditional Catholic faith—heck, whole dimensions of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
"So it really doesn’t matter if you add all the “smells and bells.” It’s like putting royal clothing on a starved and shivering waif."


When the bishops of a country as small as ours with so few Massgoing Catholics can't arrive at consensus on Communion on the tongue; when the US bishops can't decide on giving Communion any which way to fake Catholic politicians like Joe Biden, and when Jorge Bergoglio and his faithless adherents in New Zealand stay shtum over the latter-day massacre of the innocents, one has to ask the reasons why.

Dr Peter Kwasniewski sheds light on the Novus Ordo (New Mass) and its influence on all these issues and many more beside. But first, on the New Zealand scene, Palmerston North NO Massgoer Matthew Walton provides a local illustration which goes a long way to prove Dr Kwasniewski's thesis. 

(Walton explains that the "dear Father" and "the allegorical brother" to whom he refers are real. It's up to you, dear reader, to guess at their identity.)

"Dear Father started his Sunday homily with a consideration of the factor which fear plays in our lives. Spoken with humour, but it was really emotional manipulation implicitly geared around two things: taking the vaccine and division in the Church.

 

Bergoglio kidding homeless people into taking the vax 

Division found on YouTube, he said, is not unity. He called comments about the pope, bishops and priests 'hateful and divisive'; these don't help the Church, he said. 

We should remind ourselves that the expression 'hate speech' were invented by Communists to deter ordinary people from speaking what they saw to be the truth.  

Does that mean we give carte blanche to any direction they give, to anything they say or preach ? Are they allowed to manipulate the Truth any way they like? No: Scripture, Doctrine and Tradition  are the very elements by which the faithful can test what is being put out by the hierarchy.

I would add that the faithful must test it.  

The hierarchy have been told about the dangers of the vaccine. They know that aborted human cells are used in the development and production of the vaccines.

The Prime Minister and others have been warned of the legal action pending over pressure or coercion to take the vaccine. Still they all persist. Pope Francis' record on defending the unborn is a tragic betrayal of epic proportions. Still the bishops persist in backing his line. Do they think people won't oppose them, or that such opposition is immaterial ?

Lining up many bishops (all of ours), the Pope and Governments (definitely ours), one could be forgiven for thinking they're all in cahoots, but they do act as if they are all of one mind, leading us into the uniformity of a new world order.

An allegorical brother said to me, "short-term pain for long-term gain". He was referring to the greening of the world's economy which, however, is connected to the above subjects. I say that the type of state we're heading into, which says, 'Trust the science', but ignores  the advice of honest scientists - let me tell you - this path leads to dictatorship and government by dictatorship causes lots of pain, suffering and death. Such regimes tend to last lifetimes.

"On the Towers, ye watchmen raise your voices !"

And now to hand over to Dr Kwasniewski and his dissection of the liturgy as it affects all the subjects covered above, and many more.       

"In many discussions online, I have encountered versions of the view that we should not be “fussy” about liturgy, because as long as we are attending a Catholic rite, and we are sincere in our intentions, we will be led to God. Those who hold this view fail to recognize, however, that bad liturgy damages the spiritual lives of the faithful; it actually sets them back. A letter I received some time ago from a friend really brought this out, and I share it now with NLM readers, along with my briefer reply."


"Dear Dr. Kwasniewski,

I’ve been reflecting on the idea of malformation in the liturgy. What is the effect (if it can even be measured) of the liturgy of the past 50 years on the faithful? Specifically, in the way that it has formed us (or malformed us)?

About seven years ago I was driving in the car listening to 'Catholic Answers'. The new translation of the Missal had just been issued and the host was discussing the repetition of “through my fault” in the Confiteor. The caller was troubled by an “overemphasis on sin.” The host was lamenting a “loss of the sense of sin” in our culture.

I couldn’t help but think that the liturgy itself, in the old ICEL translation, had itself downplayed the sense of sin (at the time, I didn’t know that this was more than just the translation, but was also the fact that the Consilium deliberately removed this type of language from the Missal). And so, I found myself actually somewhat upset with the host. His caller probably wasn’t a “now-and-again Catholic”; most likely, this was someone who had attended Mass faithfully over the past several decades. Part of the reason this person had lost the “sense of sin” wasn’t just “the culture,” but was the fact that the liturgy itself fails to adequately convey this.

I’ve worked in faith formation in a variety of roles over the past several years. We were always lamenting the “failures in catechesis” regarding things like sin, the Mass as Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, marriage, the importance of Confession, the reality of hell. We thought all we needed to do was to teach people about these things and to explain their meaning and importance, developing programs and faith formation series, making more resources available, getting priests to talk more about them in homilies.

While all of those endeavors are certainly helpful, what we failed to comprehend was that the liturgy itself was working against us. Week after week, the average Catholic’s experience of the liturgy was malforming them in all these areas. And this is something, it seems to me, that catechesis can never overcome.
Catechesis, the lex credendi, should flow out of liturgy, the lex orandi. I can remember a very faithful man, something of a “postconciliar exile”—being so struck by John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia. He would say again and again that at the Mass, we are at Calvary. Years later, I realized that when I’m at the TLM, it actually feels like I’m there at the Cross. At the NO, I have to direct my intention and make a greater effort to be mindful of what’s taking place on the altar.

 

The Crucifixion by Fra Angelico

Another common thing I’ve heard in discussions of evangelization is the fact that “only 5–7% of people in the pews are evangelized.” What I always thought about this was that we need to have different in-parish evangelization programs to help these people understand what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. We have to understand the “thresholds of conversion” (Sherry Weddell) and help guide people through them to the place of “intentional discipleship.” Then they will be ready and in a position to benefit from the Mass.

While there is probably some truth to this, my thinking is starting to shift in this area as well. If these people are at Mass, presumably they have some faith, some relationship with Christ. What if it’s been the liturgy that has actually been an obstacle to them deepening this relationship? What if they have actually gone backwards in their journey, because they are not being drawn into a deeper encounter with mystery and a richness of prayer?
I don’t think we’ve sufficiently considered this as a real possibility as we try to find “solutions” to these problems. Generally the thinking seems to be that these people won’t “get anything out of the Mass” until they are evangelized and have a personal relationship with Christ. But isn’t the liturgy the very place where this relationship is fed? What about situations where the liturgy does not instill the habits that allow us to grow closer to Him?
 
In my own life, I see this struggle especially with the Liturgy of the Hours. I have prayed the LOTH on and off for about fifteen years. Lately, however, I’ve been using either the Roman Breviary or, more recently, the Anglican Use Office (which allows for the continuous reading of the whole psalter over the course of a month). I notice that I’m actually formed differently.
Using the Anglican Use Office, I’ve been going through all 150 psalms, with no omitted verses. It conveys a very different sense of God, of myself, of what I should ask for in prayer, than the LOTH does. I guess my point is that even if someone is immersed in the new Mass and the LOTH, they aren’t going to get a lot of those things that we (from the “faith formation” perspective) most want them to get: the sense of sin, the importance of penance/fasting, a deepening immersion in the liturgical year, the Mass as Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the uniqueness of the ordained priesthood, the four last things (death, judgment, heaven, hell).

I’m understanding more and more your call for a wholesale return to the traditional Latin Mass and the other traditional rites. Even if the Novus Ordo is celebrated beautifully (along with Vespers at the parish, for example), it still seems that in some way we have to put back in all sorts of elements that have been removed (through homilies, catechesis, explanations, etc). But this is incredibly laborious, never totally successful, and finally, doesn’t seem to be what the liturgy is intended to be. It should be able to do what it does just by being what it is, rather than needing constant life-support from a team of doctors.

Nowadays, when people are bored at Mass or “don’t get anything out of it,” we often ask: well, what are you bringing to it? Again, there’s some truth here, I don’t deny it. But am I right in thinking that this is fundamentally a wrong way of looking at liturgy? The liturgy is supposed to call these things out of us. We aren’t meant to simply put ourselves, by our own effort, into the proper dispositions. The liturgy is intended to draw these things from us, demand them of us.

Yours in Christ,
Parish Catechist"

 

"Dear Parish Catechist,

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Obviously, the rudiments of faith and catechetical knowledge are presupposed to engaging the liturgy—but the liturgy is then supposed to take that and nourish it, carry it further, like Christ multiplying the few loaves and fishes the disciples offered Him. If the liturgy is not assisting in the development of a deep interior life and a reliance on sacramental grace and an awareness of the sacred mysteries of Christ in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, then it is simply failing in its proper work as liturgy. I talk about this in a few chapters of Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright, especially 5, 7, and 19 (online versions of which can be found herehere, and here).

The Divine Office was destroyed by the Liturgy of the Hours. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it’s the sober truth. For the first time in the history of the Roman church, the full psalter is not recited. In the old breviary the 150 psalms are recited each week; in the LOTH, it’s not quite 150 over a month—and with plenty of verses skipped, as you know. The Anglican book, which I’m not familiar with, sounds very good. It’s clearly superior to the LOTH, and if you find it spiritually fruitful, I’d say stick with it. It’s better, all things considered, to pick one book and make it your go-to for the office than to bounce between several.

What you have described can be rephrased this way: the reformed liturgy simply lacks whole dimensions of the traditional Catholic faith—heck, whole dimenions of the Old Testament and the New Testament. So it really doesn’t matter if you add all the “smells and bells.” It’s like putting royal clothing on a starved and shivering waif. There’s a disjunct that cannot be overcome by piling up externals but only by restoring the fullness that already existed in the old rites. It seems to me plausible to believe that Divine Providence, with a “severe mercy,” permitted the “mystery of iniquity” of the liturgical revolution in order to send the most almighty wake-up call and cold shower in the history of the Church.
“O my people, pay attention to the riches you have—or I will take them away.” He says this a thousand times in the Old Testament. We are still Israel journeying through the wilderness of this world en route to the Promised Land of heaven, equipped with laws and rites that we seldom perfectly observe or appreciate. He bestows what is good; He tries the hearts and veins; He chastens whom he loves; He sends into exile; but He always promises to relent, for a remnant, and He does relent, letting the sweetness of His love be tasted and seen. This is the very logic of salvation history, and we have seen it playing out before our eyes.

I have no more to add to your excellent analysis. Would that more pastors and religious educators would wake up to the sharp inadequacy of reformed means to accomplish traditional ends; would that they could turn again to what the Lord has already provided in the history of the Church, and feed the people with liturgical bread, not stones!

In Domino,
Dr. Kwasniewski

And now for good measure, for fear we forget that all this argument and conjecture is worth nothing, and that we ourselves are nothing, let's turn to Our Blessed Mother in these words of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, written on Sunday last:  

"Noble Lady and Queen of Heaven, do look upon us, your children, in this hour of darkness and affliction. Deign to hear and fulfil our humble and confident prayer, in an hour when the Enemy’s forces are multiplying in an assault from Hell upon God, upon His Church and upon the entire human family.

 

As a model and example of humility and obedience to the will of God, enlighten our rulers for them to remember that the authority they exert belongs to God before Whom they will answer, the just Judge, for the good they will have done and the evil they will have committed. Virgin most Faithful, teach those in charge of public affairs to honour the moral obligations of their office by refusing any kind of connivance with vice or error.

 

As our Intercessor in front of the Throne of God, you cure our ills of body and soul and you are rightly called upon as Health of the Sick; guide now the doctors and medical workers in their profession, and help them to look after the sick and to tend to the weakest. Give them courage to stand up to whosoever would force them to kill people or make them ill by inappropriate treatment or harmful medicine. Ask the divine Doctor of Souls, Our Lord, to awaken in their conscience the sense of their true role and duty to promote life and bodily health.

 

As a fugitive to Egypt you saved your divine Son from the massacre of Herod; save our children from the moral and material threats which hang over them, protect them from the true plague of sin and vice, and from the criminal plans of the ideological dictatorship seeking to crush them in body and soul. Give strength to parents and educators, to enable them to stand up to a dangerous and morally illicit drug being tried out on children. Frustrate the attempts of those attacking their innocence, who strive to pervert them at their tenderest age by misleading their intelligence and corrupting their morals.

 

In passing from this world to eternal life you were consoled by the presence of your Son; be close now to the sick, to the aged, to the dying, especially to those who are being forced by inhuman rules to face death alone in a hospital bed without the sacraments. Bring them comfort by inspiring them with sorrow for their sins, and with the desire to offer their sufferings in reparation for sins committed, so that they may leave this life with the consolation of dying in the friendship of God.

 

As the Mother of Priests; give light to our Shepherds to open their eyes to the present threat, to make them coherent witnesses of Christ your Son, brave defenders of the flock entrusted to them by the Lord, valiant adversaries of error and vice. Free them, Virgin most Holy, from all human respect and connivance with sin. Set them on fire with the love of God and neighbour, enlighten their mind and arouse their will.

 

In front of you the demons of Hell flee; destroy the diabolical plans of this hateful tyranny, the deceit of the pandemic, the lies of the workers of iniquity. Let the light of Truth shine forth above the lies, just as the true light of Christ shines above the darkness of error and sin. Confound your enemies, and humble beneath your feet the proud head of all those daring to defy Heaven, and seeking to establish the kingdom of the Antichrist.

 

As Mediatrix of all Graces and our Co-redemptrix, by divine decree; obtain for us the grace to see the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart, to which we consecrate ourselves, our families, our communities, our Church, our homeland and the entire world.

 

 




 

 


Monday, 21 June 2021

NZ NOW REMINISCENT OF THE SOVIET UNION IN THE '60S

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.



Doctors (by the dozen) who oppose the Pfizer vaccine are now threatened with being struck off. 

Dr Curtis Walker wants doctors spreading 'misinformation' struck off


Medical Council chair Dr Curtis Walker complains that doctors are peddling 'conspiracies'. 

"Questioning the severity of Covid, questioning the safety of vaccination, questioning whether the whole thing is a conspiracy theory."

Too right they're questioning it, Dr Curtis. And not only doctors. Outraged readers of this blog are not only questioning the vaccination but condemning the ghastly bully-boy tactics of the Medical Council in silencing valid opposition to this 'vaccine'.

"This is straight out intimidation, this will bring the majority of doctors into line.  Dr Curtis Walker of the Medical Association talks like a politician who knows all the answers (like Ashley Bloomfield). No mention of the science, the range of professional opinions, the known and unknown dangers, the professional requirement to provide balanced and informed advice to patients." 

"When a doctor recommends you take a drug he is professionally obliged to inform you of the side effects (drowsiness, upset tummy etc).  It seems with Covid propaganda that professional standard is gone.  But then many of these doctors do abortions. The Hippocratic oath is out the window."

"Huge sums of government money flow to the medical system, benefiting doctors.  The Medical Association clearly thinks its best interests are served by towing the government line and helping to intimidate their members to follow the government story on Covid. Huge sums of government money flow to the Catholic Church as well (schools, helping immigrants, Catholic welfare NGO's etc).  Our bishops are similarly bought off, they are no better than the Medical Association." 

"Professionalism and truth are dead or dying. Follow the party line or you will lose your job. In future, medical practice is to be guided by politics, not science. If we don't get in line we could end up labelled as far right, racist, misogynist transphobes. The mind boggles.:

"You know what Julia, it reminds me of Germany before the roundup. People were saying 'It's coming! Get out!' Some did. Some got swept up. The writing is on the wall. The juggernaut Fourth Reich is full steam ahead. They aren't going to allow voices of dissent, no matter how educated or well informed. The brainwashed are calling out those who can see. Slippery - 'Covid conspiracies' could act as as a gateway, exposing people to online communities espousing far right ideology, misogyny, racism and transphobia."




Bishop Athanasius Schneider 






And then - thank God - there's Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, whose fine intelligence and wise teaching of Catholic doctrine reassures us that the Holy Spirit still resides in some pockets of the episcopacy. 


In this interview, given in Austria in recent days, Schneider makes two inter-related points:

1) all the various injections that have been proposed as "vaccinations" against the Coronavirus have used cells from aborted fetuses, either in their creation or in their testing. Schneider argues that, if this is the case, the injections are morally unacceptable. So two issues seem to require clarity and transparency: a) are the injections created, or tested, using aborted fetal cells? and b) if yes, is it in keeping with Catholic moral teaching to receive such injections, or is it immoral to use the cells of aborted babies even if the stated goal is to prevent harm to those who receive the aborted human fetus-derived injections?

    2) that there has been a widespread disinclination on the part of global leaders and opinion-makers to entrust the various disputed questions about aspects of the Coronavirus crisis — from its origin to its harmfulness, from its treatment to its prevention — to a panel or committee of objective scientists, scholars, moral theologians, and thoughtful, wise men and women in general, to ensure that all the evidence is examined and weighed carefully, enabling humanity to face the crisis with the confidence that motives of political, economic, national or personal advantage have not in some way or other caused a "rush to judgment" (and "rush to vaccinate") which may turn out to be harmful to many.


In this regard, Schneider observes that the way a political and media consensus has been arrived at, and the way any viewpoints not echoing that consensus have been mocked, vilified and silenced, reminds him of the way the Communist Party functioned in the Soviet Union when he was a child.

    Here is a link to this important interview with Bishop Schneider (link).

    And here is the rough transcription of the interview:

    ***

    James Henry: What did you think of the global lockdown which started in March of 2020?

    Bishop Schneider: It was evidently an exaggeration and out of proportions. It was like a program, and orchestrated action which was always in the same way all over the world. So it left some suspicion that there had been some orchestrated actions for a certain aim. So this lockdown had not only, in my opinion, a concrete medical aim but also another one: to create a psychological state of panic and fear in people, and so this was also a kind of intimidation -

To which New Zealand's bishops have eagerly contributed  

- of people which, I repeat, was out of proportion. There could have been safety measures for sanitary purposes, but in a reasonable way, but not with such drastic and in some way tyrannical methods. And these methods of tyranny, which were applied in some places, out of proportion, should cause in us to have to think about this, and reflect, and analyze this.

    James Henry: Do you think these measures had a sinister purpose?

    Bishop Schneider: Sinister purpose? I do not know concretely, but surely there was a kind of political purpose to use this situation of the Covid virus, this sickness which is of course present, this virus which attacks the health, but not in such an exaggerated presentation as has been presented to us every day, and also it continues, a kind of brainwashing methods in the mass media, and by the governments, this also creates suspicion.


Why do they do this? This is not only for the safe health of people, but there must be another aim, a kind political aim to create new structures and systems of social life, probably of more control over every one of us. So a society of total control. And when there is a society of total control of individuals, this is very close to a society of slaves, where there is a small elite group that controls the rest. This impression is left now after this year of these experiences of lockdowns and other measures, with the evermore necessity to be vaccinated, therefore one can believe that there is the aim of creating a new social system, or order.

    James Henry: How do you see this? Is it something you see as against God's will for the social order? Is it immoral?

    Bishop Schneider: Of course it's immoral to have a total control of people. Because we are created also as persons, personalities. We have also a right of privacy, not to be controlled completely. And when you have no privacy, you are a slave. Slaves have no privacy. And this is against the dignity of the human person as a person, a personality. And we have freedom. Of course, freedom has limits in society, sure, and therefore there are laws and orders, but not to that extent, to have a total control even to the private sphere. And of course there are people who are evildoers, and terrorists. They have to be controlled, even in their private sphere. I mean evildoers, criminals, they should be prevented from doing harm to the population. But when the entire population is submitted to a total control, in some way we are all treated like dangerous persons who have to be controlled. This is against the dignity of human beings created by God.

    James Henry: What is the position of the Church on the vaccinations?

    Bishop Schneider: Yes, I am convinced that the vaccinations which have been produced by using cell lines from an abortion, from the assassination of an innocent child, or to be tested, this is intrinsically an evil. And a Christian cannot in any way, with no exception can you legitimize the use of this medicine or this vaccine. Since you know this, with full knowledge and with full freedom, you cannot do this, because in this way you are collaborating in a proximate way, not a remote way, in a proximate way with the horrible fetal industry, which is every day growing now. And there are two phenomena which we have to distinguish. One is the killing of the innocent baby, it is horrible, the abortion itself. And then the other, horrible phenomenon, the abuse of their body parts themselves in the biomedical research and industry which is now expanding. And so we are putting ourselves close to this horrible, cruel industry, abusing the weakest ones in our society, the unborn, and their body parts. And therefore we can never, there is no exception, we cannot use the abortion-tainted vaccines or medicines, from the moment that we have sure knowledge about this.

    James Henry: To your knowledge, are a lot of the vaccinations using fetal tissues?

    Bishop Schneider: At least those anti-Covid vaccines that are now propagated and admitted, like Astra-Zeneca, Johnson and Johnson, they, the pharmaceutical company itself, admits it, so, they themselves admit it. And even Pfizer, Moderna say that they tested, used aborted cells in the testing process. So they admit this. So there are no other anti-Covid vaccines that would be free from any connection to a cruelty, to abortion. So they have to have true, 100 percent cruelty-free vaccinations.

    (...)

    We have to be absolutely against the cruelty done to unborn children, and then the unworthy and degrading manner of using their body parts. This is a horrible thing. And we have to always to protest against this. When we admit an exception, in exceptional cases, then our protest is not credible and is weakening all our protest against this horrible industry, and it will be ineffective, de facto.

    James Henry: About your background: were you deported to Kazakhstan?

    (Bishop Schneider speaks of the history of his family.)

    James Henry: Do you seem any similarities to the Communist period with what is happening now?

    Bishop Schneider: Yes, I am seeing similarities. First, because there is no more opposition. There is only one view, in the politics, in all the public opinion, the official I mean, there is only one opinion admitted. Concretely now, in the Covid situation, there is not admitted another voice. This is already very dangerous. And the same with the gender ideology, in which as we know it is not possible to have another opinion and position.

    And this is to me very similar to the Soviet time through which I lived. There was only one position admitted. And when you had another position, you were declared as an enemy, or as a spy, or as a conspiracy theorist. This was said in the Soviet time. When you had another opinion, you were declared as a conspiracy group, "You have a conspiracy theory. "And they said, "You have hate speech." This expression "hate speech," this came from the Communists. They said, "You are hating the Soviet system, you are hating the Soviet people." Because you are against Communism. And so they are very close, these expressions today.

    And then, the continuing brainwashing in the social media, in the official state-run or social media, mainstream media, the same brainwashing from morning to evening, always, every hour.

    The Communists did some informations about Communism, about the beautiful life of the new Communist style, and so on, in the same way we are now experiencing, for almost more than one year, we are brainwashed from morning to evening with the so-called Covid news, which are not real, we cannot prove them, we cannot examine them, in an objective (way), there is no objective committee, no scientific, no social (committee), to examine all this data we are receiving.

    And now we have, the entire population of the world has, the sign of the admission to this system: the mask. It's a visible sign to which we have submitted. Even if so many scientists, doctors and people of common sense say that in so many cases the masks are really useless and against any meaning. But it is continuing, because the new social global system wants to have a concrete exterior sign of submission. And this expression of the continuous emergency situation which they created and even expanded. So I hope there will rise up people with common sense from diverse parts of the society, of good will, to resist the new forms of dictatorship in the Western world, to... that our society will receive again a worthy way of life, which really corresponds to the dignity of the human person created in the image and the likeness of God.

    This society should be renewed, and I am convinced it can be only renewed with Christ, the only king of humanity, the only savior, and with the commandments of God, which only lead humanity to happiness and peace.

    

Christ Crucified with the Good Thief by Titian

 

ei



 

Sunday, 20 June 2021

NZ BISHOPS FOLLOWING BERGOGLIO'S DESIGNS FOR ONE WORLD CHURCH

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.


"Your Eminence, I was saddened beyond words by being denied my right to receive Communion on the tongue this morning. That is my right, and no priest anywhere in the world can deny it." 

"No, it's not your right. The Bishops have decided."


St Patrick's, Kilbirnie. Why doesn't the parish just decamp to St Gerard's?


The conversation took place this morning at St Patrick's Church, Kilbirnie. Cardinal John Atcherley Dew was there to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on twenty children, mostly of First Communion age and far too young - and dare one hazard a guess, uninformed - to reflect and make a mature commitment to being soldiers of Christ, which is the status conferred by the sacrament. You might as well confer Confirmation with Baptism on babies and be done with it.

Not that in today's ceremony there was any hint of soldiering for Christ. No, as the disgraced former bishop of Palmerston North, +Charles Drennan has remarked, any hint of militancy (in the Church upon earth, what is in fact the Church Militant as opposed to the Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, in heaven) is now seen as distasteful. It's just Not Nice. 

A certain Massgoer had been presented by a family member, anxious to avoid embarrassment no doubt, with the St Patrick's newsletter which warned in suitably bold print of the boldness of the bishops' prohibition on Communion on the tongue; and not wanting to make a scene in front of the confirmands and their families, said Massgoer decided to pull head in.

Otherwise, as said Massgoer informed the cardinal in the foyer afterwards, they would have presented for Holy Communion in the traditional, time-honoured way, on their knees, in defiance of the bishops' - or rather, this neo-Marxist Government's - edict, which as the Cardinal stated, is supposed "to keep us safe". When informed further that it was nonsense to say Communion in the hand keeps anyone safe, the cardinal's predictable response was "I'm not going to argue with you."

"No, because you can't argue from that position," said the Massgoer.

"The bishops in each conference have the right to decide on these matters," said the cardinal.

This Massgoer, knowing very well that the cardinal's publicly-declared, preferred style of address is to "call me John", but refusing to demean the priestly office by the palsy-walsy post-Vat 2  'Father Tom Dick or Harry'), then continued with, "Your Eminence, no priest anywhere in the world has the right to deny Communion on the tongue."

"I'm not going to argue with you," his Eminence said, again.

The indefensible positions the cardinal was so eager not to debate are: 1) the safety of Communion in the hand when there's no medical evidence whatsoever to suggest that it's any safer than Communion on the tongue but actually rather the reverse; and 2) the burning issue of the power of bishops' conferences vis-a-vis the Vatican. At base, this is an argument for a collection of churches around the world which may, or may not, be opposed to the Holy See on any particular point of doctrine.  And yet the bishops bang on about 'unity'. 

In regard to 1), in 1969 the Instruction Memoriale Domini pointed out that the centuries'-old practice of Communion on the tongue had developed, and was to be preserved, for the sake of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. One had only to be in St Patrick's Kilbirnie this morning to observe the lack of reverence, particularly in the concert-going chatter that preceded Mass, which is so regrettably a feature of the Novus Ordo effect.

Now, one has to wonder whether the NZ Conference of Bishops ever voted by a two-thirds majority to introduce the practice of Communion on the hand and then applied to the Vatican for approval of Communion in the hand and then were granted that approval. Because that's the due process prescribed by Memoriale Domini. 

Does Cardinal Dew and the bishops realise that Communion on the tongue is the norm for the entire Latin Catholic Church? And that even if they ever voted for Communion on the hand, and applied for and received permission for it, bishops have no authority to forbid Communion on the tongue?

But they have done so.  It would seem that the New Zealand Conference of Catholic Bishops is abusing its episcopal authority in making arbitrary rules at the diktat of a socialist, neo-Nazi Government and contravening universal norms into the bargain. 

The role of bishops is primarily to teach and to ensure their flock receive the sacraments. How do they fulfil that role by their teaching in regard to reception of Holy Communion and by depriving the faithful of the Bread of Heaven? Are the NZ Bishops a law unto themselves? Or a law unto the liking of an evil hierarchy? 

In following Jorge Bergoglio's designs for a One World Church they are incurring God's displeasure and His chastisement on the Catholic Church of New Zealand, just as the universal Church has incurred divine wrath for illegal manipulations of the papacy in Rome.


Lightning strikes St Peter's Basiica as Pope Benedict XVI resigns

The important Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum — Instruction on Certain Matters to Be Observed or to Be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 25, 2004, reads in art. 92:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her [in that manner].

The Congregation for Divine Worship has expressed its mind at least three times in response to situations where attempts were made to enforce Communion in the hand. A letter of April 3, 1985 to the National Conference of  (US)Catholic Bishops reads in part:

The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing Communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing Communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful[.] … The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of Communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, published in Notitiae (April 1999):

It is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult. 

Fr. Anthony Ward, S.M., under-secretary of the CDF, wrote in July 2009:

This Congregation … wishes to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 June 2009 regarding the right of the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. This Dicastery observes that the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92), nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91). 

As Bishop Schneider says, "The shepherds and the sheep of the Church will stand condemned of worldliness if they are willing to make compromises about the appropriate treatment of the Body of Christ in order to preserve their mortal and perishable lives. We would be justly condemned for seeking first ourselves and not the Kingdom of God:

If the Church in our day does not endeavor again with the utmost zeal to increase the faith, reverence and security measures for the Body of Christ, all security measures for humans will be in vain.

"If the Church in our day will not convert and turn to Christ, giving primacy to Jesus, and, namely, to the Eucharistic Jesus, God will show the truth of His Word which says: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain that keeps it” (Psalm 126:1-2).