To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Protestants please restrain yourselves. No rants.
“The responses (of the bishops) reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.” So he diddled us |
A tsunami of shock waves engulfs the Catholic world as the Church adjusts to Vaticanista Diane Montagna's revelation yesterday of Antipope Francis' pretext for suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). It was a prevarication. He doctored the truth.
Francis said he suppressed the TLM at the request of the bishops. He didn't. Most of the bishops opined that revoking Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum (which restored the TLM) would do more harm than good. Even the German bishops supported the TLM.
But worldwide, bishops submitted to the error of Francis' Traditionis Custodes. Except for Bishop Joseph Strickland who was cancelled and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano who was excommunicated. Because Francis would not brook opposition to his darling, Vatican II, and its creature, the NOM revolution. He crushed the Latin Mass because it was saving souls.
Millions of Catholics were and are bereft of the Latin Mass and the sacraments dispensed by orthodox priests, meaning quite likely their loss of eternal life. Why would a pope inflict such harm on the Body of Christ?
It's like this. The Catholic Church was infiltrated last century by Freemasons and Communists determined to demolish the Most Holy Eucharist. They advanced their satanic cause at the Second Vatican Council with Pope Paul VI's protestantised Novus Ordo Missae (NOM).
Like devious Francis, +Paul VI was ruthless in quelling opposition to his New Mass, which taught children who for centuries had knelt to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, to line up and take the Body of Christ by the hand. So as the Freemasons and Marxists intended, those children lost the faith.
Chaos ensued and Francis took his wrecking ball of Traditionis Custodes to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to demolish what was left.
There's no joy in saying, re Francis, "I told you so". But at last, bishops and priests must face the fact that he was no pope. He never was and now everyone must own it.
VATICAN CITY, July 1, 2025 — New evidence has come to light that exposes major cracks in the foundation of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ 2021 decree that restricted the traditional Roman liturgy.
This journalist has obtained the Vatican’s overall assessment of the consultation of bishops that was said to have “prompted” Pope Francis to revoke Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter liberalizing the vetus ordo, more commonly known as the “Traditional Latin Mass” and sacraments.
Serious journalist Diane Montagna - a latter-day Lois Lane |
The previously undisclosed text, which forms a crucial part of the official report by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on its 2020 consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum, reveals that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
The overall assessment directly contradicts, therefore, the stated rationale for imposing Traditionis Custodes and raises serious questions about its credibility.
When, on July 16, 2021, Pope Francis promulgated Traditionis Custodes, he said the responses to the questionnaire “reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me and persuades me of the need to intervene.”
It preoccupied and saddened him (he was more likely furious) because the responses told him that Vatican II's creature, the NOM, was losing ground to the "Mass of Ages".
“Regrettably,” he said in an accompanying letter to the world’s bishops, “the pastoral objective of my Predecessors … has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI … was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”
He told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificum but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
In other words, Francis had to get rid of the Latin Mass before it gained more ground, especially with youth, and put the NOM completely in the shade.
Seriously - who can take this seriously? |
However, what the Vatican’s overall assessment reveals is that the “gaps”, “divergences”, and “disagreements” stem more from a level of nescience, prejudice and resistance of a minority of bishops to Summorum Pontificum than from any problems originating from adherence to the traditional Roman liturgy.
Conversely, the official CDF report states that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it.” It adds that “in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.”
The overall assessment also confirms the contention I reported in October 2021: That Traditionis Custodes magnified and projected as a major problem what was merely ancillary in the official CDF report.
Furthermore, the text clearly shows that Traditionis Custodes disregarded and withheld what the report said about the peace Summorum Pontificum had restored, and turned a blind eye to a “constant observation made by the bishops”— that younger people were being drawn into the Catholic Church through this older form of the liturgy.
The overall assessment also predicted, based on the responses of bishops, what would ensue were Summorum Pontificum suppressed — forecasts that turned out to be accurate.
Re-opening of Notre Dame: the NO farce. Had it been a Solemn High Latin Mass it would have wowed the world |
Genesis and Structure of the Official Report
The task of preparing the official report was entrusted to the Fourth Section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Until TC, this entity, formerly known as the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, was responsible for supervising the observance and application of the provisions established in Summorum Pontificum. Consequently, the Fourth Section possessed a breadth of experience and expertise with which to view and analyze the survey results.
In the Spring of 2020, a questionnaire was sent by then-CDF Prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria to the presidents of episcopal conferences worldwide, for distribution to diocesan bishops; responses were received by the CDF until January 2021. The body of material, submitted in several languages, was processed, analyzed, and incorporated by the Fourth Section into its findings.
While I have not seen the report in its entirety, I am reliably informed that the 224-page final report, dated February 2021, is comprised of two main parts. The First Part offers a detailed analysis of the survey results and findings continent by continent, and country by country, and includes charts and graphs illustrating data and trends.
TC's architect and his hitman +Arthur Roche |
The Second Part, titled “Summary” [Sintesi], is briefer and includes an introduction, a summary on each continent, an Overall Assessment [Giudizio Complessivo] of the survey results, and a collection of quotations drawn from the responses received from the dioceses and arranged thematically. This collection was meant to provide Pope Francis with a representative sampling of the bishops’ responses.
The overall assessment opens by noting that Summorum Pontificum played “a significant, albeit relatively modest, role in the life of the Church.” By 2021, “it had spread to around 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its implementation was “more serene and peaceful, though not everywhere.”
Pope Francis stated in Traditionis Custodes that he “considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” The overall assessment is precisely the part of the report that synthesizes and interprets the survey results, offering an evaluative conclusion drawn from the evidence.
In other words, the overall assessment reflects the informed judgment or opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Pope Francis not only had the report, but according to reliable sources, literally snatched a working copy out of Cardinal Ladaria’s hands during an audience, telling him he wanted it immediately because he was curious about it.
Although the Vatican has never released the contents of the official report, in October 2021 I obtained and published the collection of quotations included in Part II—indicating, however, only the country or region from where the quotations originated.
The Overall Assessment: 7 Key Takeaways
1. Lack of liturgical peace and unity is due more to minority of bishops than to adherents of the traditional Roman liturgy.
Where liturgical peace is lacking, the report shows it stems more from a level of nescience, prejudice and resistance of a minority of bishops to Summorum Pontificum than from any problems originating from those drawn to the traditional Roman liturgy.
Ftrom liberal bishops. Progressive bishops. Modernist bishops. Apostate bishops.
The CDF report recalls Benedict XVI’s desire to achieve, through the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, an “internal liturgical reconciliation” within the Church, and his recognition of the need “to proceed not according to a hermeneutic of rupture but rather by renewal in continuity with tradition.”
“This ecclesiological dimension of the hermeneutic of continuity with tradition and with a coherent renewal and development has not yet been fully embraced by some bishops,” the report observes. “However, where it has been received and implemented, it is already bearing fruit, the most visible of which is in the liturgy.”
Novus Ordo church in Switzerland has a woman concelebrate mass. With 'pride' |
Furthermore, the report laments that “in some dioceses the Forma extraordinaria [Extraordinary Form] is not considered a richness for the life of the Church, but rather as an inappropriate, disturbing, and useless element for ordinary pastoral life, and even as ‘dangerous’ and therefore something not to be granted, or to be suppressed, or at least strictly controlled so that it does not spread, in the hope of its eventual disappearance or abrogation.”
As the Extraordinary Form, the Latin Mass, was indeed considered in Palmerston North Diocese, New Zealand, by its first bishop, +Peter Cullinane, now happily retired.
More specifically, the report found that bishops in Spanish-speaking regions generally “seem to show little interest” in implementing Summorum Pontificum, despite requests from the faithful. Similarly, it noted, “the responses from Italian bishops suggest that, overall, they do not hold the Forma extraordinaria and its related provisions in high regard, with a few exceptions.”
Perhaps proximity to the tyrant in the Vatican influenced the Italian bishops' responses.
Regarding a misunderstanding or ignorance among a minority of the episcopate, the report noted: “Some bishops state that the MP Summorum Pontificum has failed in its aim of fostering reconciliation and therefore request its suppression—either because internal reconciliation within the Church has not yet been fully achieved, or because the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Church.”
In response, the authors observe that the process of reconciliation in the Church is often “slow and gradual,” and they recall, as Benedict XVI himself did, that Summorum Pontificum was not intended for the SSPX.
Additionally, the report noted, some bishops fear a “division into two Churches” and believe that groups attached to the Extraordinary Form “reject” the Second Vatican Council. The report acknowledges that latter point this is “partly true” but says that it “cannot be generalized”. Here too, it adds, “the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of some members of the stable groups.”
Lastly, the report notes that “some bishops would prefer a return to the previous indult situation in order to have greater control and management of the situation.”
2. Majority of bishops who implemented Summorum Pontificum expressed satisfaction with it.
Conversely, the report found that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented the MP (Motu Proprio) Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it.” It adds that “in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.”
Furthermore, the report found that “the bishops most attuned to this matter observe that the older form of the liturgy is a treasure of the Church to be safeguarded and preserved: it constitutes a good to find unity with the past, to know how to advance along a path of coherent development and progress, and to meet, as far as possible, the needs of these faithful.”
According to the report: “The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire state that making legislative changes to the MP Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
Based on its findings, the report predicted that “weakening or suppressing Summorum Pontificum would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve.”
NO Mass - for the Lavender Mafia, possibly |
Some bishops thought a legislative change to Summorum Pontificum would “foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups”, foster distrust toward Rome, give rise to “a resurgence of the liturgical wars” and “even foster the emergence of a new schism.”
Indeed it did "foster the departure of disappointed faithful ... toward the Society of St Pius X." And indeed it looks suspiciously like TC was designed partly to achieve precisely that. When a faithful Catholic experiences heresy and abuse at their local parish NO Mass and the only alternative (thanks to Traditionis Custodes and a Freemasonic bishop) is the SSPX three hours away, what's their alternative source of the Eucharist and Confession?
And the bishops should know that the Society is NOT a schismatic group. "Bishop Schneider reiterated what the SSPX has always maintained, namely that it is not outside the Catholic Church. The bishop also rejected the claims that the Society’s members were excommunicated and highlighted the fact that the Society upholds the Church’s traditions as they were exhibited up until the Second Vatican Council. Schneider likewise noted that the alleged excommunications of the Society’s bishops were long contested and that the matter was finally put to rest in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI." https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-schneider-comes-sspxs-defense-again-19160
Moreover, “it would delegitimize two Pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who had committed themselves to not abandoning these faithful.”
3. Bishops are grateful for the competence of the CDF Fourth Section (the disbanded Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei)
The report stressed the importance of stable groups and communities having a “competent interlocutor” at the institutional level, i.e. at the Holy See. The report notes that careful oversight carried out by those with experience and expertise helps to “prevent arbitrary forms of self-management and anarchy within the groups, as well as abuses of power by some local bishops.”
Bishops expressed “satisfaction and gratitude” to the Fourth Section of the CDF (and former PCED) for their work.
4. Report confirmed attraction of young people to the older form of liturgy.
The CDF report confirmed Benedict’s intuition, expressed in Summorum Pontificum, that younger people would find in the traditional Roman liturgy “a form of encounter with the mystery of the Holy Eucharistic particularly suited to them.” It notes:
“A constant observation made by the bishops is that it is young people who are discovering and choosing this older form of the liturgy. The majority of the stable groups present in the Catholic world are composed of young people, often converts to the Catholic faith or those returning after a time away from the Church and the sacraments. They are drawn by the sacredness, seriousness, and solemnity of the liturgy. What strikes them most, also amid a society that is excessively noisy and verbose, is the rediscovery of silence within sacred actions, the restrained and essential words, preaching that is faithful to the Church’s doctrine, the beauty of liturgical chant, and the dignity of the celebration: a seamless whole that is deeply attractive.”
5. Report highlighted growth of vocations in Ex-Ecclesia Dei communities since Summorum Pontificum.
The CDF report highlighted the growth in vocations in former Ecclesia Dei communities since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum but noted that some diocesan bishops are not entirely pleased by this. “Many young men,” it said, “are choosing to enter the Ecclesia Dei institutes for their priestly or religious formation rather than diocesan seminaries, to the manifest regret of some bishops…”
Again, when the choice lies between a diocesan seminary which trains priests for the Protestant Novus Ordo and fails to inculcate the truths of the Catholic faith, and a traditional seminary which forms men in persona Christi, is there really any option?
6. Report recommended studying both forms of Roman Rite as part of seminary formation.
The report therefore suggested, based on an idea proposed by bishops, that “sessions dedicated to the study of both forms of the Roman Rite” be incorporated into seminary formation and other ecclesiastical faculties, as a means of fostering greater unity and peace, increasing diocesan vocations, and preparing “suitably formed priests” for celebrating the Roman Rite.
7. Report recommended: “Let the people be free to choose.”
Based on the findings of the survey of the episcopate, and citing a Filippino bishop, the CDF report concludes by recommending: “Let the people be free to choose.” And recalling a bishop’s irreplaceable, albeit sometimes challenging, role and duty before God to tend the flock, the report ends with Pope Benedict XVI’s words to the Bishops of France in 2008 concerning Summorum Pontificum:
“I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honor and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity.”
The NO: a blessing by guitar and the ubiquitous Cranmer table |
Guardians of Tradition?
The overall assessment comes to light after the archdiocese of Detroit (USA) became the latest to suffer from a crackdown by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (DDW), the dicastery charged with enforcing Traditionis Custodes.
In April, its newly installed archbishop announced that the Traditional Latin Mass would no longer be permitted in parish churches as of July 1, 2025. Citing a 2023 Vatican rescript from DDW prefect Cardinal Arthur Roche, the archbishop informed his priests that local bishops no longer possess the ability to permit the older form of the liturgy in a parish church.
In his response to the final question of the nine-point Vatican survey, which I have obtained, the former Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, summed up what—according to the official report—the majority of bishops had actually requested.
The survey asked: “Thirteen years after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, what is your advice about the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?”
Archbishop Vigneron replied:
“My advice is to maintain the discipline and norms set out in Summorum Pontificum, and to deal with any problems that are arising by calling priests and people to observe them. The motu proprio has given us a remarkably successful approach to resolving the contention that existed in the Church about the status of the Extraordinary Form.
The discipline it has put in place is bearing much good fruit, especially in the lives of the faithful and in restoring ecclesial peace. There is no question in my mind about the legitimacy of the Extraordinary Form as extraordinary. These celebrations offer valid experiences of the Church’s sacred liturgy but complement the Ordinary Form. Such celebrations are in no way a threat to the Ordinary Form established after the Council, and in the Church, they enrich her in her diversity. By my lights Summorum Pontificum has been a remarkable success.”
The moral justification of Traditionis Custodes was always weak given the positive fruits that have come from the traditional Roman rite, its growing popularity, especially among the young, its influence on the family as the “domestic church,” and its ability to attract vocations.
This new discovery of the CDF’s overall assessment of its consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum serves to cast further doubts on the foundation and credibility of Traditionis Custodes. https://substack.com/inbox/post/167259174?r=1akpiq&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Exorcists emphasise the power of Latin over Satan So who benefited by Francis suppressing the Latin Mass? Cui bono?
"This see is apostolic, and he who occupies it is said to be the successor of Peter, as long as he professes the true faith. No one who thinks and speaks truth would dare deny this. That the Bishop of Rome profess only the faith of Sylvester, Agatho, Leo, Liberius, Martin, and Gregory, we would proclaim him first among all other high priests, and we will submit to him not simply as to Peter but as to the Saviour himself. But if he is not successor in the faith of these saints, nor is he successor of the throne. Not only is he not apostolic, neither is he first, nor Father, but he is an adversary and devastator and enemy of the apostles."
Pope Leo must say something, but he probably won't. Best he might be able to do is not enforce Traditionis Custodes, and just let the TLM continue to grow with young people.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRumors being spread after someone is dead so they can't defend themselves is messed up.
Paul Delaney hardly rumours. Documented facts.
ReplyDelete
DeleteJulia du Fresne how do you know? Has the Vatican admitted to it? Have official documents been released and verified somehow?
DeletePaul Delaney did you not read the post? If you click on the link you'll get the documentation. The Vatican has now gone into damage control.
ReplyDeleteI believe the church is going through persecution, woe to those who aid it. Check the vision of Pope Leo 13 and Don Bosco,this are the times. But our Blessed Mother Mary will crush all this evil.
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Father is infallible. He is always guided all the time of all his actions. Much much prayers and meditation had been done before anything disseminated to the faithful. As Christ said to the Apostles when instituting the Church.... I am always wt you always till the end of time The gates of hell shall not prevail against you. So?
DeleteLaura Carrera papal infallibility applies onlly to solemn magisterial pronouncements on faith and morals.
Laura Carrera and you overlook the fact that Francis was not a pope. He was elected illegally.
Delete
DeleteThe Holy Spirit is always there to enlighten and guide the Cardinals etc of all the policies promulgated by the Church. This I understand myself.
Laura Carrera the Holy Spirit is always there but he is usually not heeded and He is not there for people in a state of serious sin.
DeleteLaudie-Anne Sneddon Wake up. The devil is smart......Who believed Card Vigano when he spoke out.He had to hide and keep moving for fear of his life.
Delete
DeleteLaura Carrera please read the book about how communists were recruited to enter and destroy the church. It is going on today. Evil is in the church and we need to be more like Paul who called out Peter when he was wrong. We cannot blindly follow a Pope or Cardinal who is teaching against the Word. Nor encouraging us to believe we are all under the same God. Evil abounds.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the fact that a lot of communists entered the Seminaries to cause havoc to the Church's teachings. We have seen the fruits of their works. I often wondered if Bergoglio was one. Think Our Lady forewarned about this infiltration.
Laudie-Anne Sneddon as the post implies.
Delete
ReplyDeleteTheir is excommunication for those who reject a Church Council and the teaching authority of the Church! Excommunication so they repent and return to the teaching authority given to us by the Lord !
ReplyDeleteRon Kuhlman Vat II was merely pastoral. Catholics are not bound by any of its pronouncements. Thank God.
Paulette Bulmer-two
ReplyDeleteGod is the only judge of our souls. We are to judge all sin not the person
God us the only judge and we r all His children.
ReplyDelete
DeleteVirginia Nyambura oh stop. We are not all his children and God will judge harshly on those who subvert Him.
ReplyDeleteLying is a mortal sin. Bugnini lied to Pope Paul VI whilst fabricating the neo-protestant Novus Ordo.
Douglas Wood and +Paul VI lied to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Delete
DeleteDouglas Wood although not all lies are mortally sinful. And Bergoglio didn't flat-out lie; he misled and deceived the Church.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it take for some strong Catholic eg Pope Leo to call out Bergoglio for his anti-Church rantings, Say he was false and get the true believers back on track. We pray and wait. Card Vigano tried, is he still in hiding. Didn't think I would live to see what has happened......Masons infiltrating the Church and the sheep following.
ReplyDeleteHe was the Pope whether you liked him, agreed with him, or not. So get over yourself.
Delete·
Rebecca Ornelas Clark Not sure what your point is? He never made one infallible statement everything he said or did can be dissented from..
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson my point is, that our opinions do not matter to the Vicar of Christ. He WAS the Pope. Appointed. Ordained. Whether we liked him, agreed with him, or not. It is vanity to think that we know better than the Holy Spirit and the Cardinals who voted him in. WE do not know better than the Vicar of Christ. WE are not smarter than the Holy Spirit.
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson messages like this are what spread hate and division among ourselves. We have enough of that already. The church needs to come together. Not try and divide us further apart.
Rebecca Ornelas Clark You're correct no one knows better than the Holy Spirit which is why no one including the Pope should ever violate dogma because dogma comes directly from the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not chosen by the Holy Spirit the college of cardinals is guided and they can reject this guidance just as a pope is guided by the Holy Spirit but can also reject this guidance. The only time that the pope speaks infallibly with the Holy Spirit is when he speaks ex cathedra something Francis never did.
Delete
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson I do not agree with the sentiments of this post. Thank you.
Delete·
Rebecca Ornelas Clark That is fine to disagree with the OP but you shouldn't make false arguments based on a misunderstanding of papal infallibility, the role Of the Holy Spirit in the election process of the Pope, and the dogmas of the church related to the mass. I'm sure none of this was done on purpose but you should look up each of these topics for future reference and debates as well as your own personal knowledge.
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson I am not making any false arguments. It is not for you to speak against the Pope (period,) and to spread division within our church. Why? What purpose does it serve? He is gone now. A new Pope. (Who hopefully does things the way you think they should be done.) Even the pharisees rejected Christ because He did things different. (I am NOT saying Francis is/was Christ,) but are you the same as the pharisees?
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson I am aware of how the election process works. I was speaking to simplify.
DeleteRebecca Ornelas Clark Christ admonished the Pharisees because they strained gnats while swallowing camels. Similarly neo Catholics such as yourself and Pope Francis tried to de facto make Vatican 2 into dogma while they violated and undermine actual dogma such as quo premium. We were told throughout tradition that popes can fall into error and heresy and they need to be corrected. Again a 5 minute Google search will find this for you.
In addition to embracing neo-Catholicism you've also embraced the heresy of hyperpapalism where you think that every word spoken by the Pope rises to the level of infallible dogma and must be obeyed. Again you need to do some research before you get involved in these debates. And again the division is caused by those such as yourself who ask Catholics to deny dogma for the fallible and heretical teachings of modernist clergy and popes. We as Catholics are called to believe all dogma and to reject anyone anyone's heretical teachings theat contradicted it, even the pope’s.
ReplyDeleteAnd Communion on hand were introduced, no longer holy communion.!
Delete·
Let Peralta it’s still the Holy Eucharist whether in the hand or on the tongue ! Seriously , people !
Let Peralta it’s still the Holy Eucharist whether in the hand or on the tongue ! Seriously , people !
DeleteLet Peralta really! The presence of Christ ceases when you receive in the hand? I did not know that.
DeleteJean Richard It’s exactly that the true presence needs to be respected and protected. Every crumb. Which is the safer more reverent option:
1. Elderly lady plopping it into someone’s hand?
2. Father carefully placing it on the tongue with a paten safeguard and a backup cloth?
DeleteBryan Mech it's still called Holy Communion, that's what I was referring to, I agree that irreverent Communion is wrong either way though
DeleteLet Peralta if you believe in Transition (transubstantiation -ed) then you know it is still Holy Communion and does not cease to be "the body of Christ" just because it is received in the hand regardless of what you think of that practice.
ReplyDeleteLori Brezina Danuloff why aren't our hands consecrated?
Pat Mcgee because they aren’t . Nor are our tongues consecrated!
Delete
DeleteLori Brezina Danuloff you might read the traditional baptismal rites and get back to us.
DeleteLet Peralta for the first several centuries of the church communion was recieved in the hand.
ReplyDeleteHoward Trading This is demonstrably false. The practice gained traction in some places and was suppressed ultimately for the obvious reasons.
DeleteBryan Mech St. Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD) describes the faithful receiving after the prayers.
– Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to handling the Eucharist.
– St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD) instructs: "Make your left hand a throne for your right... receive the Body of Christ."
– St. Basil the Great (c. 370 AD) says Communion in the hand was the norm in his time.
Delete·
Howard Trading The Council of Trent which is de fide -infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit- said that communion on the tongue is an Apostolic tradition.
DeleteHoward Trading Lets finish St Cyril’s quote. Should we rub the Precious Blood all over our eyes, lips, and ears like he did or should we ignore what was suppressed? Should we condemn the modernist belief that what was suppressed in antiquity is actually better than organic development or go against it?
ReplyDeleteMaybe pope Francis banned Latin mass because the church is seeing such division being caused by vicious TLM Catholics working so hard at dividing his church and calling NO Catholics heretics. They will answer in Gods judgement. Explain it to our Lord why you divided his church.
DeleteColleen Ireland I heard a lot of TLM podcasts, Priest, Bishops and lay members saying Pope Francis pontificate was invalid and the Novus Ordo Mass was sacrilegious etc... one Priest even suggested that Bergoglio as he called him (Pope Francis) have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea. Then they wonder why Pope Francis wanted to limit the TLM
·
DeleteJean Richard There are millions of traditional Catholics in the United States there were only a few thousand sedvacantist, conflating traditional Catholicism with sedevacantism is a gross error committed by many neo Catholics and amounts to nothing more than a smear. Traditional Catholics try to stay faithful to the dogmas of the faith which includes quo premium -mandating the latin and mass- but it also includes acceptance of the Pope. Therefore a sedevacantists is not even Catholic since they deny the dogmas of the faith and are rejected by actual traditional Catholics.
Delete·
Colleen Ireland Actually as usual it is liberals that are causing all the division as they reject dogma. Catholics have no choice but to accept dogma if you reject just one you're outside the church and no longer Catholic.
That the TLM is to be the only mass of the church is dogma is clearly stated in quo premium.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm
DeleteDr. Christopher Wilson so the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid and Christ is not present in the Eucharist?
Delete·
Jean Richard Did I see any of that? What is said by quo premium is that the TLM is to be the mass and that whoever violates this and alters the mass will incur the “wrath of God.” Why don't you reading it.
Of course, for the laity this creates an issue because very often the TLM is not available in many areas, If it is available then obviously that's where you should go. Eastern rite masses are also permissible according to Quo Premium.
ReplyDeleteYour last two sentences say it all.
ReplyDeleteDon’t think Pope Leo is willing to oppose San Galen mafia.
Doesn’t want to end up like JP1
ReplyDeletePrévost will nothing do about it …He was very close to Bergoglio and will probably finish what Bergoglio started.