PERSECUTION AT ST PATRICK'S NAPIER

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

Stigmatist (St) Padre Pio receives Communion  

The priests at St Patrick's Napier - a Marist preserve - still refuse to give Communion on the tongue. Why? Why are they persecuting good Catholics?  

Supposing that a priest loves his Eucharistic Lord, and believes what the Church teaches - that He is present in the Host, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. What's he thinking, as he proffers Our Lord and then when the communicant kneels and humbly puts out their tongue, refuses to hand Him over? What does he think Our Lord is thinking? 

If he has faith he knows Our Lord loves that communicant passionately. That He died on the Cross so that He could give Himself to His beloved in Communion. "No, Lord," says Father, "I'm not giving You on the tongue. It's got to be on the hand." Even though the tongue was the only way to receive Our Lord right up to Vatican II. 

Do the Marists perhaps still believe Communion on the tongue is endangering their health, or their parishioners'? Would they in self-defence perhaps cite "the common good of the Church" etc (canon 223)?  

They might, but it wouldn't wash. Because the common good of the Church has arguably suffered more, since Vatican II, from the practice of Communion in the hand than from any other single cause. Free-fall in Mass attendance. Drastic drop in priestly and religious vocations (one NZ seminarian, and imported at that). 80% US Catholics disbelieving the Real Presence. Just look around St Patrick's, at their pitiful weekday Mass attendance. The Council Fathers never wanted Communion in the hand, never mentioned it. For good reason, as Lucifer knows.

Lucifer's sin was disobedience born of pride, and it was and is pride that gave birth to the indult for Communion in the hand. Permission for this horrible practice, introduced partly to please the Protestants and promoted in the US by the equally horrible Cardinal Bernardin, was granted only unwillingly, after disobedient bishops - firstly in the Netherlands - allowed it. But the indult was an exercise in shutting the gate after the horse of pride had bolted. 

It's said that the devil has no knees.

"According to Abba Apollo, a desert father who lived about 1,700 years ago, the devil has no knees; he cannot kneel; he cannot adore; he cannot pray; he can only look down his nose in contempt. Knees symbolize both strength and humility. 

"Athletes use strong knees to run for touchdowns in football and to block shots and to slam-dunk in basketball. Knees also bend in adoration of the Eucharistic King and in recognition of the grandeur and majesty of the Most High God" - Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted.  

Can. 223 §1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.

§2. In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.

Note that it's not only ecclesiastical authority (priests and bishops) who "must take into account the common good of the Church (and) the rights of others, and their own duties toward others" but also "the Christian faithful", i.e. the laity. Lay people have a duty to look to the common good of the Church etc, and that good is served best by the universal practice of the Church for centuries of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist being dispensed only by the anointed hands of her sacred ministers, directly on to the tongues of communicants.

“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)”.

Any questions, Father Anonymous? Is there something not quite clear about the statement quoted above from the Congregation of Divine Worship? It would seem that in denying the faithful Communion on the tongue you are acting illicitly. That you are in fact disobeying Holy Mother Church in her universal norms. 

As to the tired old argument that Communion on the tongue is as bad for you as fudge, that's fudge. The Marists need to wake up. They should do some research and discover the dreadful truths exposed by the excess deaths world-wide in the wake of all their Covid-19 "health measures" - above all Pope Francis' "act of love" in submitting to the Jab. As simple common sense would have told you, had you not presumably been scared witless by an evil prime minister's threats of "tens of thousands" of deaths from Covid, your parishioners were never more at risk from Communion on the tongue than in the hand. They were in fact, all along, far more at risk from that experimental gene serum you promoted which is now killing and maiming millions.

(T)he  the bishops should be made aware that the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is as safe as reception on the hand (according to the Catholic Medical Association: “either method should be safe from transmitting the virus”), or safer (according to the F.I.A.M.C, or the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations: “the FIAMC perfectly agrees [that Communion on the tongue is safer than hand Communion.]”). 

Contrary to the prevailing consensus among Catholic bishops, receiving Communion on the tongue and in the kneeling position is scientifically the safest and most hygienic method, which is "unlikely to incur a high risk of infection transmission," the new research shows. Titled "Safety and Reverence: How Roman Catholic Liturgy Can Respond to the COVID‐19 Pandemic," the paper published  by academic Sergey Budaev.

"(B)ishops misunderstood the WHO citation of existing practice in certain churches of Communion-in-hand as an endorsement. "Apparently, this blindly follows the generic recommendations without adapting them to the Roman Catholic Church," he writes, blasting the imposition of Communion-in-hand as "explained by vague hygiene without scientific evidence"https://stpaultheapostleal.archtoronto.org/siteassets/media/files/study-shatters-myth-of-safe-host-in-hand.pdf

"Concerned Catholics, including the Latin Mass Society, repeatedly asked bishops to show us the evidence upon which they based their attempts to ban the practice — something, in fact, which they lacked the authority to do. It was never provided, and this study confirms that it does not exist," stated Dr Joseph Shaw, an academic at the University of Oxford.https://stpaultheapostleal.archtoronto.org/siteassets/media/files/study-shatters-myth-of-safe-host-in-hand.pdf

Pope Benedict XVI gives Communion

You've probably been told that the Church originally allowed Communion in the hand. Well yes, but only until lack of reverence and Particles dropped from the Host became obvious - and even then Communion had been given only into hands covered with a veil, with the head  lowered to receive It on the tongue.

One of the two processes is bad practice and the other is what the Church desires. You choose. You can decide to begin receiving on the tongue. Just kneel in front of the priest, not too close, tilt your head back slightly and put out your tongue. Practise with a bit of bread, with a friend or someone in your family. Yes, some people will think you're drawing attention to yourself. Some will look at you sideways. You have to decide who's most important - some people, or your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

And if you're a "Minister of the Eucharist" (you're actually not, not unless you're a priest), just resign. There's not a lot we lay people can do (apart from stopping our planned giving) to resist the Modernists and the mayhem they're making of our beloved Church, but the little we can do we must do or we'll answer for it before the Lord at our particular judgment.

St Teresa of Jesus (Avila) was granted a vision of hell where priests and bishops were recognisable by their hands, the palms of which burned more fiercely than the rest of their body. Just saying. 

The Doctrine of the Church Tells Us ....

Communion on the Tongue

Is an Apostolic Tradition

Statements from Popes, Saints and Church Councils:

St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."

St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

Pope John II violated the Apostolic Tradition which must not be altered when he did not stop the practice of Communion in the Hand distributed by the non-ordained. Interestingly he and the other Popes of Vatican II never gave permission for self-administration by the non-ordained, but did not stop to think in their blind spot that Communion in the Hand is self-administration because until the Host enters the mouth which invariably involves the tongue by physical necessity, any action involving the hands is administration not receiving. The only part of the human body that is capable of receiving the Host for consummation is the tongue, since all food must pass over and on the tongue to be swallowed, otherwisethere is no other way to avoid choking.---Pauly Fongemie, Web Master

Pope St. Leo the Great is less well known for something very important to liturgical studies. He is one of the most ancient witnesses to the practice of Communion on the tongue. Notably, Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). 

In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.

The Council of Rouen (650):

“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”

St Paul of the Cross



"The Cross is the way to Paradise, but only when it is borne willingly"

St Paul of the Cross, on your feastday please pray for the Church