| Pope John Paul II accepts statue of Buddha at Assisi |
"In light of the first commandment of God, how can we evaluate the acts of a pope who, by his words and by his kiss, seemed to raise the Koran to the same level as the Word of God?" (Rome, May 14, 1999.)
A reader of this blog has raised objections to Communion in the hand being described as "sacrilegious", saying that "Cardinal Raymond Burke's thinking is not in accordance with St John Paul II or Pope Benedict Emeritus on Communion in the hand!
"Do you think if it is as you say a 'sacrilege' that these two Pontiffs would have allowed this sin to take place! Hardly!"
My reply to this exhortation was: "I guess they allowed this sin to take place in the same way they allowed so many priests to disobey the rubrics, which when done deliberately is a mortal sin. They were powerless to stop it."
My reader was not so easily persuaded. "Julie!" she cried. virtually (people who've known me a long time call me Julie, not Julia which is my given and preferred name).
She protests that "Heaven would not have granted the second miracle for JPII's canonisation." She goes on to say that Communion in the hand is accepted by the Church and that Jesus Christ would not condemn something that the Church was legitimately going to approve."
First things first: I thought I'd take a look at JPII's canonisation. Even though for years he was my hero, those were years in which I didn't know Grade A from a bull's foot and for some time now, sadder and I hope wiser, I've been thinking there was something shonky about Karol Wojtyla's rapid ascendancy into glory.
What's shonky is this sort of thing:
- as Pope II he publicly kissed the Koran
- placed a statue of Buddha on top of a tabernacle in Assisi. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has said of Assisi, “In my view, this is a diabolical act” and “the supreme imposture, the culminating insult to Our Lord”.
- prayed to St John the Baptist for the protection of Islam (Holy Land, March 21, 2000)
- actively participated in animist rituals in the sacred forests of Togo (August 9, 1985)
- presided over an interfaith meeting at Assisi (October 27 1986)
- visited a synagogue, the first visit ever by a pope
- received the 'sacred' ashes of Shiva (Madras, February 5, 1986)
- prayed in the Jewish manner at the Wailing Wall (March 26, 2000)
- had the epistle read in his presence by a topless woman (New Guinea, May 8, 1984)
- expressed idolatry, for example, in the discourse delivered by the aforesaid Servant of God at UNESCO on June 2, 1980: in the cultural domain, man is always the primary factor: man is the primordial and fundamental factor in culture... In thinking of all cultures, I wish to say here in Paris, at the seat of UNESCO, with respect and admiration, Behold the man ! »
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0315-cotter-assisi.htm
So those are just some of the curious antics he got up to as Pope. But wait, there's more - and it doesn't apply just to JPII but to John XXIII as well.
So those are just some of the curious antics he got up to as Pope. But wait, there's more - and it doesn't apply just to JPII but to John XXIII as well.
Since Vat II, procedures for beatification and canonisation have (surprise, surprise!) been radically altered, by JPII himself in the apostolic constitution Divinis Perfectionis Magister (1983). And you won't be surprised either, in this modernist age of collegiality, to hear that the process is now all down to the local bishop. Would we trust any of NZ's bishops, should a candidate for sainthood pops up in Enzed, to investigate their life, writings, virtues (virtues? what are they?) and miracles, and send the dossier to the Holy See?
Huh, say I. In my book there's Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Peter Jugis, Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and then the duds, wash-outs, write-offs and also-rans - including Bishop Emeritus of Palmerston North, the Right Reverend Peter Cullinane DD, whose 40th anniversary of ordination today is cause for celebration as far as our parish is concerned. Huh, say I.
Huh, say I. In my book there's Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Peter Jugis, Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and then the duds, wash-outs, write-offs and also-rans - including Bishop Emeritus of Palmerston North, the Right Reverend Peter Cullinane DD, whose 40th anniversary of ordination today is cause for celebration as far as our parish is concerned. Huh, say I.
Not only are the procedures handed over to bishops but the number of miracles required has been halved; only one for beatification and one for canonisation. The Sovereign Pontiff no longer signs off on three consecutive consistories before canonisation. No, we place our trust in bishops.
And not only that, but JPII decided to bend his own rules by authorizing the introduction of the cause for Mother Teresa just three years after her death - and rigor mortis had barely set in before before Benedict XVI did the same favour for JPII. We doubt there'll be a rush to canonise Benedict (a tad too trad) but just wait till Francis shuffles off this mortal coil (do we really have to?) and we'll have St Francis Mark II canonised in his coffin.
So I think we've dealt sufficiently with the authenticity of JPII's canonisation, be the second miracle ever so Heaven-sent and signed off. I mean, Heaven-sent opportunities have been abused before now. Look what the guys in charge at the time did with Jesus Christ.
And just who is it that's ferreted around and dug up the dirt on the gang of miscreants in the Vatican who handle beatifications and canonisations, and their legislation reverting to the XIIth century, so that now the pope leaves it to the bishops to make a direct judgment of the causes of saints and reserves to himself only the power to confirm the judgment of the Ordinaries (yes, that's right, bishops).
The Society of St Pius X, that's who. A professor of Ecclesiology at the seminary of Econe, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, ratifies the conclusions of the SSPX, expressed in a theological study submitted to Rome several times over through several different pipelines, to no avail - it was mysteriously mislaid by the office boy (a bishop, perhaps?) and discovered the day after the diocesan process closed. I guess that office boy, if he was a bishop, got promoted to the archbishopric smartly.
The goalposts have shifted. "Taking into account both the apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983and the motu priprio Ad Teundam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises hix personal teaching authority (magisterium) to proceed to a canonization, it seems that his will is to intervene as the organ of the collegial magisterium; thus canonizations are no longer guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the pope's solemn magisterium.
"Would they be so in virtue of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the College of Bishops? Until the present, the entire theological tradition has never said that such was the case, and has always regarded the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted only to the personal magisterium of the pope, which can be likened to ex cathedra pronouncements [locutio ex cathedra]."
Then there's the question of "heroic virtue" the practice of which is traditionally required to be evident for beatification and canonisation. It's those goalposts again: one of them has disappeared. There's common sanctity, and then there's heroic sanctity - which is never mentioned in the post-conciliar documents. Theologians now seem to think of heroic virtue as being out of the ordinary, natural virtue instead of out of the ordinary supernatural virtue. So that their judgment as referees on the playing ground of holiness would seem highly suspect.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonization-doubts-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-2637
So if that's got JPII's miracles out of the way, there remains the question of Jesus not condemning Communion in the hand when the Church was legitimately going to approve of it.
Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."
After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.
The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
In 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand.
He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.”
Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence.
Maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist:
Not too long ago, I was alerted to someone who did not consume the Host. After Mass I confronted the young man, and he pulled it out of his shirt pocket. It seems he wasn’t Catholic and didn’t believe, and so didn’t know what to do. But, I am very worried these days, with the rise of satanic cults who use the Eucharist in their rites. In fact, someone shared this story of his youth, as he admitted these satanic cults are everywhere now …
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.XqfmMmgza00
I think we may safely conclude that the Church has never "legitimately approved" of Communion in the hand.
And the fact that it was the Society of St Pius X - firstly Archbishop Lefebvre, then Bishop Bernard Fellay - who blew the whistle on JP II and obrogations to tradition and the magisterium in regard to canonisation, underlines the significance of the Immemorial Mass, the Mass of Ages, the Mass which the SSPX came into being to protect and preserve.
It's fifty years+ of faithful adherence not just to the Immemorial Mass but to reverence for Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in administering Holy Communion only on the tongue, which gives the SSPX that perception of things eternal, that "inward eye" of Wordsworth, which escapes the bishops, the priests and the poor old plodders at the New Mass, fed as they are on pap in the texts and on their Almighty God in their unwashed hand, standing.
But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined (1 Cor 2:14)
And not only that, but JPII decided to bend his own rules by authorizing the introduction of the cause for Mother Teresa just three years after her death - and rigor mortis had barely set in before before Benedict XVI did the same favour for JPII. We doubt there'll be a rush to canonise Benedict (a tad too trad) but just wait till Francis shuffles off this mortal coil (do we really have to?) and we'll have St Francis Mark II canonised in his coffin.
So I think we've dealt sufficiently with the authenticity of JPII's canonisation, be the second miracle ever so Heaven-sent and signed off. I mean, Heaven-sent opportunities have been abused before now. Look what the guys in charge at the time did with Jesus Christ.
And just who is it that's ferreted around and dug up the dirt on the gang of miscreants in the Vatican who handle beatifications and canonisations, and their legislation reverting to the XIIth century, so that now the pope leaves it to the bishops to make a direct judgment of the causes of saints and reserves to himself only the power to confirm the judgment of the Ordinaries (yes, that's right, bishops).
The Society of St Pius X, that's who. A professor of Ecclesiology at the seminary of Econe, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, ratifies the conclusions of the SSPX, expressed in a theological study submitted to Rome several times over through several different pipelines, to no avail - it was mysteriously mislaid by the office boy (a bishop, perhaps?) and discovered the day after the diocesan process closed. I guess that office boy, if he was a bishop, got promoted to the archbishopric smartly.
The goalposts have shifted. "Taking into account both the apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983and the motu priprio Ad Teundam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises hix personal teaching authority (magisterium) to proceed to a canonization, it seems that his will is to intervene as the organ of the collegial magisterium; thus canonizations are no longer guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the pope's solemn magisterium.
"Would they be so in virtue of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the College of Bishops? Until the present, the entire theological tradition has never said that such was the case, and has always regarded the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted only to the personal magisterium of the pope, which can be likened to ex cathedra pronouncements [locutio ex cathedra]."
Then there's the question of "heroic virtue" the practice of which is traditionally required to be evident for beatification and canonisation. It's those goalposts again: one of them has disappeared. There's common sanctity, and then there's heroic sanctity - which is never mentioned in the post-conciliar documents. Theologians now seem to think of heroic virtue as being out of the ordinary, natural virtue instead of out of the ordinary supernatural virtue. So that their judgment as referees on the playing ground of holiness would seem highly suspect.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonization-doubts-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-2637
So if that's got JPII's miracles out of the way, there remains the question of Jesus not condemning Communion in the hand when the Church was legitimately going to approve of it.
Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."
After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.
The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
In 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand.
He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.”
Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence.
Maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist:
- While I can relate to many of the following, here is a testimony from a Deacon:
- I've watched a mother receive communion, her toddler in tow, then take it back to the pew and share it with him like a cookie.
- At least four or five times a year, I have to stop someone who just takes the host and wanders away with it and ask them to consume it on the spot.
- Once or twice a month I encounter the droppers. Many are well-intentioned folks who somewhere, somehow drop the host or it slides out of their hands and Jesus tumbles to the floor.
- I've found the Eucharist in a hymnal, under a pew, in the bathroom and in the parking lot.
Not too long ago, I was alerted to someone who did not consume the Host. After Mass I confronted the young man, and he pulled it out of his shirt pocket. It seems he wasn’t Catholic and didn’t believe, and so didn’t know what to do. But, I am very worried these days, with the rise of satanic cults who use the Eucharist in their rites. In fact, someone shared this story of his youth, as he admitted these satanic cults are everywhere now …
When I was in junior high I started hanging out and getting high with some of my older brothers’ friends. They would “play around” with ouija boards and tarot cards. They would get dropped off at “youth group” at church – go in the front door and out the back into the woods for sex, drugs, and booze.
They would brand each other with pentagram rings and even sacrifice small animals. I never participated in it – cause I was the “little brother” – but they would talk about the Black Mass all the time. There was an older guy – our dealer – in his late twenties who claimed to be a wizard and showed us his pyx (I didn’t know what it was at the time) that he would use, because the priest at the Catholic Church he went to wouldn’t pay much attention, “well, they have a pyx, they must be legit!”
He even said he could find hosts after most Masses on the floor or sometimes between hymnal pages, like bookmarks.
I remember that, when he opened it to show us, he told us it was Jesus and that we were gonna “have a party” with him … well, I chickened out and went back to “youth” group – a couple nights later…our friend, after the “Jesus party” with the “wizard,” decapitated his sleeping aunt with a samurai sword because he “heard voices” telling him to … she was a regular Mass-attending woman; the only one left in the family.
He’s locked up in a mental institution for life. When I started learning about Catholicism, I always remembered that awful time, and couldn’t – can’t – shake the feeling that my friend opened himself up to demonic possession by participating in the Black Mass that night…there were no drugs in his system when they arrested him that night.”
Strengthening the laity’s faith in the Real Presence:
- In 1950, 87% believed in the Real Presence. Today, that number has plummeted to a mere 34%. The abusive and hurried manner in which the practice of Communion in the hand was imposed after Vatican II lead to a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist and caused great pain for many in the Church. It disoriented many people, who with real justification — especially in light of the recent and overwhelming loss of faith in the Eucharist as the real presence — feared that the very heart of Catholic belief had been compromised.
The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence toward this sacrament nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity — for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.In his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae, Pope John Paul II also states: "How eloquent, therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary. To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist."
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.XqfmMmgza00
I think we may safely conclude that the Church has never "legitimately approved" of Communion in the hand.
And the fact that it was the Society of St Pius X - firstly Archbishop Lefebvre, then Bishop Bernard Fellay - who blew the whistle on JP II and obrogations to tradition and the magisterium in regard to canonisation, underlines the significance of the Immemorial Mass, the Mass of Ages, the Mass which the SSPX came into being to protect and preserve.
It's fifty years+ of faithful adherence not just to the Immemorial Mass but to reverence for Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in administering Holy Communion only on the tongue, which gives the SSPX that perception of things eternal, that "inward eye" of Wordsworth, which escapes the bishops, the priests and the poor old plodders at the New Mass, fed as they are on pap in the texts and on their Almighty God in their unwashed hand, standing.
But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined (1 Cor 2:14)
 |
| Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI giving Communion on the tongue |
No comments:
Post a Comment