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).