Following Jesus? Then eat His Flesh as He Commanded!

I was pottering away the other day at work and on the radio there was a piece about the Mormons, in light of the USA presidential election. I think it was Radio 2, but it may have been Radio 5 (I tend to switch over to follow the news/phone-in progs).

There was a lady on from the Mormons in the UK, and various callers followed, including other UK-based Mormons. The one thing they all seemed to push (obviously taught to do so to non-Mormons) was that they are a Christian Church, that they follow the teachings of Christ etc.

Hmmm.

It seems to me that like all heretics (etc.) these people are missing the point. Christ established the Catholic Church as His Bride, with St Peter as the first Pope.

So how can you claim to follow Christ and yet spurn His legacy? He established His Church with the Pope at its head. Yet these people seem to wish to follow the writings of later men who teach against Christ's Church, as if they know better than Jesus Christ.

Not forgetting of course that Christ also established the Mass at the Last Supper, and said that you can't have life in you unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood (in Holy Communion). He didn't say this to be a "populist" or garner support -- it is not an 'easy sell.' He said this because it is The Truth. he left us His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Tabernacles of the world as spiritual sustenance in our long journey towards Heaven.

Yet these people who say they follow Christ spurn His Church and spurn His Flesh and Blood, against His Commandment.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ with St peter as the first Pope, and the Holy Eucharist as its Unbloody Sacrifice (remember the early Church practised all this - it is well documented).

So when protestants/heretics tell you otherwise or promote the idea that they "follow Christ" they are talking through their hats.

Christ established One Church, One Sacrifice, One Pope - and we still have them to this day, just as He promised we would have them.

Back to the Future: More Tradition for a New Generation

Yes: DO Eat the Fish

There was a notice in our local parish newsletter, telling parishioners that the Church had revived the tradition of not eating meat on Fridays, in reparation - and boy do we as individuals, as communities and as a society need all the help we can get!

This is one of the good things Pope Benedict has done.


Why oh why was this ever stopped, sidelined or hushed up?

While we're at it let's look at some other totally Catholic traditions that we should have back PDQ:

• Mass on Sundays. The idea of Saturday evenings is a no-no. Dispensation can be given to hospital staff and emergency workers. But for 99% of us there is no excuse for not attending Mass on the Lord's Day. Of course we can go on Saturdays and any other days of the week we wish to as well.
• Altar rails. Please! This will help all of us realise that the Sanctuary is a sacred place, not somewhere we can amble up to, shuffle around in and plonk back in our seats as if we just changed channel on the telly. It may also lead to my next 'big ask:'
• Kneeling for Communion. The Holy Father insists on it at his Masses. It shows devotion and reminds us that we are receiving Our Lord and King in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 
• Communion on the Tongue. I know this is an optional today, but I (in all my horrible anti-liberal ways) would dearly love it to be the rule (again). My hands are not sanctified, I am not a priest, I and others have no need to touch the Sacred Species and risk Our Lord being dropped, sullied or (as can happen) slipped into a pocket for profane usage.
• Reintroduction of Altars. Please! No more tables. Let us have Altars. High Altars. With beautiful images, paintings, Crucifixes and statues. Altars that raise our hearts, minds and souls to their ultimate home in Heaven. When I see a table masquerading as an Altar in a Church I am reminded that during the reformation this was one of the first things the hate-filled protestants did: rip out Altars and put in tables. A table is for a meal. An Altar is for a SACRIFICE!

So now we have a great Catholic tradition back - fish on Fridays! - let's press, pray and hope for many more.

If we pay honour to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in these ways it can only bring many and great Graces to us all in Wales  (OK, and in England and elsewhere too).

In nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum.

I just found this wonderful picture of the Holy Father giving (First?) Communion, as the child kneels and receives Our Lord -- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity -- on the tongue.

What a beautiful image. What a glorious continuation of a wonderful tradition. What an inspiring image for all Catholics and especially those studying for their own First Communion (yes, we have one such under our own roof).

Sadly I think on these matters when the Pope knows the Truth of such matters, I think he must order the Church to ensure Communion is received in this way, so Catholics know fully that it is the entirety of Our Lord in the Holy Species.

I believe it shows respect to Our Lord (who gives himself to us in His entirety) that we, the humble and unworthy sinners that we are, are showing in this small way that we know what we are doing, Who it is we are receiving, and the significance of our Communion with Our Lord.

As the rather large sign says in my local Church:

In nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum.

I am not a theologian, historian, expert nor even a particularly good Catholic, but in my heart of hearts I know many Catholics, many people, are (like me) weak-willed and prone to make short cuts when they can. Ipso facto we rely on Holy Mother Church to tell us right from wrong, to make the hard choices for us so that we may cling to the Rock of Peter in the storms of this world.

When the Church is absolute on matters of theology, liturgy and yes morality too, we know where we stand. But once they start fudging, making excuses, and popping in get-out clauses then far too many of us will search for ways out, stretch meanings and go for the easy option.

We need guidance. We need our shepherd.

Petition Against Communion in the Hand

A petition against Communion in the hand was publicised on The Hermeneutic of Continuity.

As of this moment the petition stands at 1833 souls.

Please take a moment to add your name to the petition.

Glory be the the Holy Name of Jesus.
All Honour to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Why Do So Many Think They Know Better Than God Himself?

I should start this blog entry with an apology to any theologians or priests looking in, for I am neither, just a bog standard Welsh Catholic with a Comprehensive education, so if I mix my metaphors or fumble the ball a little, please do bear with me.

I love Advent. I love this time, with the approaching of Christmas, the preparation, the hymns, carols, the excitement - almost as much (sometimes more than) the great Feast itself!

The thought of the Nativity story, the Incarnation of the Word, God made man, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ... it can make one dizzy in anticipation.

When one analyses this simple fact of the Incarnation of God one realises that far from being the simple matter of a baby in a crib, we are dealing with a fathomless mystery and equally amazing example of the fathomless nature of God's Grace.

As we Catholics say the Hail Mary we repeat those wondrous words pronounced to the Mother of God:

Hail Mary the Lord is with Thee,
Blessed art Thou amongst women and Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb.

After Her total submission to the Will of God, something each of us strives towards in our lives (often failing dismally), she was made the Ark of the Covenant. The Incarnation of God was made possible by the total submission of Our Lady to the Will of God. The Handmaiden of the Lord became our Co-Redemptrix, surely one of the reasons for Satan's prideful rebellion, that a mortal woman by raised higher in Heaven than the Hosts of Angels, as their (and our) Queen.

And this brings me to an issue that came up in conversation with our local priest on the issue of the Church, Confession etc. "Why do we need the church?" so many ask in the modern age. They could ask why do we need coffee, why do we need pavements, why do we need collars on shirts - for none of these has done even a tiny fraction towards advancing civilisation as Mother Church has -- yet we get this modernist, 60s, socialist, materialist (label it as you will) mantra repeated all the time in all forms of media but especially in modern fiction:

Why do we need the Church.


The modernists who would rewrite history and paint the Church as the greatest evil known to man (forgetting all the evils it replaced and all the evils it negated and strove to 'fix' - I am reminded of GK Chesterton's quote on Christianity as not found wanting, but found, and untried), forget that Our Lord Jesus Christ left us His Church.

If we did not need a Church, if we did not need the Sacraments of the Church, then Our Lord would not have created it, with St Peter as the first Pope, with the Apostles and others as the first Bishops, with the Mass and -- "This is My Body" -- the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity left in the Eucharist to strengthen the Christians. Our Lord also explicitly gave the priests the power for the forgiveness of sins, to enable us as e struggle on in our daily lives.

The modernist rebellion against the need for the Church (which reached its ideological zenith circa the French Revolution - but has reached its technological zenith today via the reach of Hollywood and the media) is flying in the face of the wishes and precise instructions left by Jesus Christ whose birthday most people in Europe are about to celebrate.

As for those Protestants of 1001 varieties of the modernist 'catholics' who say they do not need the Catholic Church, i.e. that any church will do... well they are as bad as those charlatans who say "I can confess my sins to God at home" -- because we all know that they seldom do, nor (without they guidance of Holy Church) would they know what constitutes sins in many respects.

Jesus Christ did not start the Protestant churches - men did. The Son of God did not start all the other religions men did (yes - even modern Judaism was started by the Pharisees). Are we really so proud, so insincere, so devious as men to think that we know better than Jesus Christ - the Son of God, God made man, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word Incarnate?

He left us the Church with the Pope at its head; he left us the Sacrifice of the Mass, he left us Confession to help us overcome our sins... and yet we, modern men, think that we do not need all this! We can do without His Church, we can do without His Sacrifice of the Mass, we can do without His Confessional!

How proud and sinful is modern man, that so many of us think we can pay lip service to the Son of God, yet ignore the very things He left us, in order that we may be worthy of Heaven, the gates of which He opened for us.

We are all of us sinners, we are all of us weak, we are all of us human. We All fall, many times, on our own Via Dolorosa. That is why we need the institutions left to us by Jesus Christ - especially His Sacraments.

If we think we can do without them we are sorely mistaken! We should submit ourselves to the Will of God, and that begins by availing ourselves of His Sacraments through the auspices of His Church.

To do otherwise is to join the Devil in his terrible revolt against God Himself.

Be on the side of the Angels! Go to Mass, get to Confession, partake of Communion. The Sanctifying nature of the Eucharist will give you many Graces, and in this modern(ist) world we, each and every one of us no matter our status, need all the Graces we can get!

Communion in Both Kinds - two Bishops Speak Out

Good intentions? Paths? A Mass in Chicago

A super post by Fr. Z on WDTPRS. A timely reminder that Communion in both kinds gives rise to far too many abuses, and (I would argue) causes scandal to some Catholics (including me!)

I pray that Catholic Bishops would defend Our Lord, present on the Altars of our land, from abuses. I know it can seem a tad hypersensitive, but the idea that Our Lord might be dishonoured, even once, should have all Catholics very, very concerned - if not outright angry.

Mary, Queen of the Universe Shrine, Florida

Sorry for the lack of posts these last couple of weeks. I've been on "vacation" snippets from which will, I'm sure, enter my posts in the weeks ahead.


Suffice it to say we had the honour of visiting the national shrine of Mary Queen of the Universe, which as with much of the region of Florida lends itself to the Spanish style of building.


We were overwhelmed with the building with its external murals above the main doors of the chapel, the gift shop was amazing - so much for the eager Catholic. I was like a kid in a sweetie shop. The museum was very interesting, with "old" vestments from 1950s Belfast, some great paintings such as The Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Bartolome Murillo. Quite breathtaking and as I explained to our youngest, 'that was painted at the time of Charles I'.


Externally there is a lovely Rosary Garden, with many of the bricks in the path sponsored by families and individuals. At the centre of it is a breath-taking statue of Our Lady with the Christ Child, all a delight to see in the glorious Florida sun-shine.


Of course, as with the gift shop, there were a very few items that one skipped across because they detracted from the overall feel of the place (Eucharistic monster items in the former, modern art in the latter), but so far the signs were promising. 


On entering the chapel for Mass I was encouraged. In the foyer there were statues, a large Holy Water font, a Papal flag and more. Then we went into the chapel itself. The altar was a table in the modern style. A modern art crucified Christ hung above it on a see-through "cross."


My heart sank. If it weren't for the Stations of the Cross, beautiful paintings along the walls in-between some gorgeous stain glass windows, there would have been little to raise my heart and soul to Heaven. 


The choir was very professional, but far too "American" for me, the readings were in some awful modern version of the Bible with really, really dreadful modern usage one of which totally destroyed the meaning of the passage, the 'what should it profit a main to gain the world and lose his soul' had the word soul changed to 'life' which, to my mind, naturalises the supernatural.

International Standard Version (©2008)
What profit will a person have if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?

The Chapel at the National Shrine

And the less said about the Eucharistic Monsters the better. As someone who finds Communion in the hand upsetting, the site of Tracy from accounts 'dishing out' the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has me on the verge of despair.


This, I feel, is what the Bishops have done in some countries. Is it too much to have altars, not tables? Is it too much to have consecrated hands distributing Communion, not Jo from the supermarket? Is it too much to have Communion placed on the tongue, not in the hand?


As with so many other Catholic churches I visit, this beautiful place reminds me what we have lost, and what we could have. With a high altar and a beautiful Crucifix, and a choir singing Gregorian Chant -- oh, we would be one step away from Heaven! 


One day... God willing.

Prince or Pauper: the King of Creation is Yours

I found this image online and it immediately made me think "this is what it is all about."

Sorry to sound like a football pundit, but this image encompasses what Catholicism is for me.

• Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
• The Faithful kneel in reverence to the King of all Creation.
• All mankind is called, prince and pauper, to receive Our Lord.
• The Mass as the centre of Catholic life and Communion at the centre of the Mass.
• A great mystery of Christian theology and history, something so sublime and beautiful.
• Yet even the "worst offender" can Confess sincerely and receive Our Lord.
• Christ the King is available, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, to the most lowly.

I hope all that doesn't sound trite, I certainly don't want it to. Just sometimes an image like this, in all its simplicity, can reveal great truths.

Original Sin: On Concupiscence, Jesus Christ and Evolutionist Heresy

I have a tendency towards sin. I am not proud of it. Quite often when I hear a holy man's sermon my ears burn.I suppose you have the same problem. So does everyone up to and including the Pope.

Concupiscence - the tendency to sin - is something that every human being in history (bar Adam, Eve, the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ) were and are born with.

It's a result of Original Sin.

Now there's two issues I'd like to chew over with you on that subject, if you'll permit me.

The first is that I am a Catholic, that I have all the weaknesses associated with Original Sin. Therefore as with all those before me (and after!) I need the help of Holy Mother Church to stay on the straight and narrow. My very concupiscent nature makes me susceptible to fall off that road, all too often.

Thus I need the "props" that Our Faith provides, not least the Confessional. Regular Communion fortifies and strengthens us all. But there is also the example, "rules" and order laid out by the Church.

Heaven knows (yes, it really does) that without these I would be like a blob of jelly, spineless and weak.

That is why I am convinced we all need the help of the Church. Our Lord was not stupid. He left us His Church, with His Sacraments, for exactly this reason. His Love, His Charity, meant that as well as suffering His Passion and dying for us all, he left behind all we need to attain Heaven.

The world says that the Church must become "softer." The Church must become more "realistic" and (I shudder as the word enters my mind!) "relevant."

What "the world" really wants is a Church that is powerless to help us, that is as jelly-like, weak and floppy as we are. They want an emasculated Church, that would result in the blind leading the blind. Why does the world want this?

Never forget that the devil offered Our Lord the whole world if he would fall on His knees and worship him. The world today is a conglomeration of media-men, politicians and other opinion-formers, most of whom are anti-Catholic in nature if not in fact. Through omission or commission they seek to make the Church relativist.

Behind this herd of cats lies Satan. He wants a Church that is powerless to help us avoid sin, and certainly powerless to help us get up, dust ourselves off and get back on the narrow way. He wants the pews emptied - less bums on pews means less souls saved (as Linen on the Hedgerow blog wrote the other day, not attending Mass on Sundays and Days of Obligation is a Mortal Sin, and that is a victory for Satan).

The more Catholics are turned away from the Church, via false pride, sloth, greed - whatever the perceived motivation ("right" or "wrong") - then the more souls are in danger of falling away, forever. Didn't Our Lady show the children at Fatima the many souls falling into Hell?

God knows (yes, He really does!) that without His Church I would have fallen away too. There are 101 reasons for not going to Church, and the devil will always find the one that most appeals to you, dripping honey words in your ears that appeal to your pride.

The response to the paedophile scandal has been more souls lost. I know this because I hear this from family members, friends and acquaintances. The Church, to many (via the world's media) has become synonymous with this scandal, with hypocrisy, with absolute evil.

These people are human of course. They are concupiscent. They are open to the devil's honeyed-words. Souls are being lost.

The first job of the Princes of the Church is to save souls. One day they, like we parents, will have to answer for the souls under their charge.

So why is this scandal being allowed to go on and on and on? Certainly the media is milking it, but there can be no doubt that their ability to do so is the fault of the Church in not acting like Catholics in the first instance.

And why is the Church putting Pope John Paul II on the road to canonisation via the "fast track" system, when it must be said that most of this scandal happened under his watch? This does not sit well with people outside the Catholic bubble. Not addressing the issue smacks of the same cover-up that hit us in the face after the years and years of this abuse scandal.

I am sorry if I have genuinely offended any good and faithful Catholics, but I think we need to wake up and smell the coffee. The truth is that the paedophile scandal (which correct me if I'm wrong but happened primarily through the 70s, 80s and 90s?) has destroyed the image of the Church in the eyes of many -- including many Catholics.

Now maybe they are weak Catholics, but so am I! So are we all. There but for the Grace of God... etc.

The only way the Catholic Church can get to the bottom of this is to grasp the nettle. The acts and the nature of the people involved must, of course, be absolutely condemned, as I'm sure it has been. But the dualistic approach to moral relativism, immoral acts etc. such as has happened in Westminster Archdiocese viz the (homosexual) Soho Masses must be nipped in the bud by the Church authorities. It was this cowardice and relativism, this 'looking the other way' that allowed the paedophile scandal to go and grow underground.

I am reminded of a priest friend who went back to his Seminary a few years back only to exclaim "it is full of homosexuals" in a most dejected way. Catholics must learn from the ills that have befallen Anglicanism. You cannot be one thing and say another. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If we say that homosexuality is an abomination, a disorder, then the priesthood and seminaries must be gone through with a fine-tooth comb.

Sounds harsh? Indeed. But when it comes to souls, Salvation, Heaven and Hell I do not think we can cut corners. Of course anyone with homosexual tendencies can and should be helped in a most charitable manner; but the priesthood must be closed off to them (as it should to people with other disorders such as alcoholism, an adulterous nature, etc.)

The fact that Catholic children were sexually assaulted by men with the indelible character of Christ's priesthood on their soul should fill us all with horror, grief, terror, remorse and shame.

Pussyfooting around issues when it comes to the Church, its moral character, its nature etc. has let too many souls fall away and let a tiny percentage [but one was too many!] of the priesthood become outright evil.

Let us learn the lesson and have a thoroughly Catholic Church run on Catholic principles, promoting the Sacraments and defending Catholic dogma and tradition.

The second issue is the issue of Original Sin itself.

A few months back I was at a local lecture on the Faith and the Salvific nature of Christ's Incarnation came up. It set me to thinking at the time, and its an issue addressed in the latest Christian Order (CO)mag too, that if one does not believe in Creation, in Adam and Eve, in our First Parents' fall from grace, then the Incarnation becomes meaningless.

A friend told me he overheard someone at his Church muttering that Creationism was ridiculous. Now if Creation is a "myth" then so is Christ's mission. His Death on the Cross in turn becomes meaningless because by their rationale there was no break between man and God, no rift, no loss of Heaven for Christ to remedy via His Passion and Death on the Cross.

Furthermore, as CO magazine makes clear, Creation is a Catholic Dogma. In other words if you do not believe that God created the entire world and all things in it ex nihilo (out of nothing) in an instant, then you are officially an heretic. I'm not a cannon lawyer but I think that means you should not receive Communion.

It is not a moot point. It is not open for debate. It is not an issue where there can be movement. Church Dogma is that God Created the earth and the beasts on it. Furthermore he created man; not a bit of slime that became a cell, that became a fish, that became a reptile, that became a mammal, that become a monkey, that became a man.

If you do not believe in Genesis (no, not Phil Collins and Peter Gabriel) and its account of Creation, then you cannot believe in Christ's Incarnation to break us free from the bonds of sin.



When Christ uttered the words "it is done/accomplished" He was surely referring to His Salvific mission to restore Heaven to mankind. Yet the very idea that we come from [soulless] monkeys and therefore cannot have lost Paradise through the actions of Adam and Eve, means that Jesus cannot have been the second Adam come to our rescue, nor Mary the second Eve conceived without sin to bring Our saviour into this world.

This heresy reduces Jesus to a "nice bloke" like we here atheists prattle on about on the telly. They tell us he was just a 'good guy' amongst many others (Buddha, Gandhi etc.) and we can pick n choose because really we're just talking soulless monkeys.

The Church has dogmas for a reason. It is not be constrain us, anymore than the need to breath oxygen constrains us or the laws of gravity constrain us. It is so that we my know, understand and dwell on the Truth.

"We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end." G. K. Chesterton

So what am I asking for? As usual I guess I am asking for a Catholic Church, i.e. for Our Faith, for the Pope and for the Bishops to be Catholic, to be dogmatic, to fight for the Truth and above and beyond all else, in all they say and do, to fight for every soul!

To do all you can in your power to keep a soul on the narrow path to Heaven and to lose is a great sadness, but it is not your fault. But to be lukewarm, to let your sheep go wandering off the track and be lost in mists, in quagmire, in thorns and be torn apart by wolves, then their fate rests on your shoulders, whether you are Catholic parents, priests or Bishops.

Please God let us all be watchful and do our Catholic duty.

I am sorry that I have 'gone on' so much, but this something I feel strongly about, and not out of pride, for I am a very weak Catholic, like all of us far too prone to sin. It is because I need so much help and I do not want to fall away (and I wish others not to, and yet more to come back to the Faith, let alone be converted) that I really desire a strong, dogmatic Catholic Church.

I feel we have gone without it for 50 odd years and the pews have emptied as a result. Please. I am not, to quote Basil Fawlty, asking for an elephants ear on a bun. I just want my Catholic Church to be Catholic! It's not too much to ask is it?

Early Saints on Communion and the Real Presence

I wonder if some kind souls (I know you exist!) out there in cyberspace could help me in some research I am doing.

I am after quotes from early Saints, say up to the Sixth Century, but the earlier the better, on Communion, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, basically the need for Christians to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our lord Jesus Christ at the Altar of God.

I know Christ Himself says that we must eat His Flesh, but is there an ongoing reference of this from other sources in the early church?

Thanks for your help.

Communion in the Hand - More Arguments Against

With a h/t to Last Papist Standing, always a provocative, totally traditional and thoroughly Catholic read!




I know I am not a theologian, nor a bishop, nor a priest; but I cannot help but notice that Communion in the hand is growing in countries where belief in the Real Presence, including belief that the Host is the ENTIRE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, is on the decline.

Just the other week I was surrounded by a well-meaning group of Catholics demanding Communion in both kinds because otherwise they weren't receiving the entirity of Jesus - in their opinion they weren't getting His Blood.

I argued against this. I stated the Truth, that the Sacred Species, the Host (under the outward appearance of unleavened bread) is the ENTIRE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

They told me I was WRONG!

Honestly.

I told them to "go check with the priest," and I moved on to talk Church history and architechture etc. with another parishioner.

The priest did confirm with the group of people that they were wrong and that the Host is Christ in His entirety.

Now I had to speak out. It wasn't pride. It was not for ruffling feathers, or to be contentious. I genuinely get outraged, on behalf of my Lord and my God, when people - but especially Catholics, do not understand that the Church teaches us QUITE CLEARLY that the Host we receive is indeed the ENTIRE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

I don't think the facts could be more obvious. Sadly, some people in the pews do NOT comprehend this. It is the duty of the Church, and its members, to impart this knowledge to the Faithful who may not understand.

It is my belief that Communion in the hand has resulted in this lack of understanding, and this lack of understanding is resulting in Communion in the hand.

It is not false piety, it is not being "holier than thou." It is quite simply the fact that I understand that the Host is the ENTIRE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and dear God in heaven knows that I, along with most people approaching His Altar, are unworthy ("simply say the word and I shall be healed") ipso facto Communion on the tongue is the ONLY logical conclusion if we (as we should!) truly believe that what we are receiving is the ENTIRE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Fr J Hardon SJ, on Communion in the Hand

"Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.... Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

- Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion. 

At the moment I am reading With Us Today: On the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, (Saint Austin Press: 2002) kindly loaned to me by a fellow parishioner. It is a magnificent read which would deepen any person's love of Our Lord in the Sacred Species and increase devotion to the Real Presence.

I highly recommend this wonderful book.

Churches Built on Sand: Without the Real Presence of Christ

I was thinking over the readings from last Sunday's Mass, especially the Bible passage about the fool who builds his house on sand.

Now I will be the first to acknowledge that whilst I find theology fascinating, I am no theologian. My Latin is dire, and my knowledge of Greek, Hebrew etc. non-existent.

I am one of those Catholics that does enjoy reading decent Catholic books when time permits, but has to rely on the certitude of the guidance put forth (over many centuries) by Holy Mother Church.

I can only read material, understand it, meditate on it, through the prism of Orthodox Catholicism. As I'm not a theologian, it's the only way I can be sure of being on absolutely solid ground.

That's one of the reasons I get so flummoxed and bamboozled when I read of "experts" or "Catholics" who deny transubstantiation, or who try and make out the Latin Mass is "divisive." After all, the Church has always been crystal clear for centuries that the Real Presence of Our Lord (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) is an absolute cornerstone of our Faith.

Likewise, the Popes said that the Tridentine Mass was eternally valid, and many Saints went to their deaths after celebrating it, attending it or defending it. How could such a treasure trove of graces, the very Church-decreed vehicle for Catholics to witness the Last Supper and the Passion of the Cross, and to bring about the Sacred Mystery of Transubstantiation itself ever be termed "divisive?"

I know sometimes it seems like hard-headedness and even a form of false piety, but in finding solace in the simple (!) facts of Catholicism can be like finding a port in the storm, the storm being this mad world (and anyone who raises a family, runs a business and lives a life trying to make ends meet to pay the bills knows that the world can be beautiful one moment and mad the next).

Thus it is that no matter what the world throws at us, as Catholics, we always have the certitude of Our Lord, in the Blessed Sacrament.

As well as being a hopeless Theologian I am also dire when it comes to quoting from the Bible. Our Lord said He would be with us until the end of the world (yes, I'm paraphrasing) and I take solace in that. I also think that when He said that, He had a special meaning: the Blessed Sacrament.

He was leaving this world as God-made-man, but He would be staying, in a quite literal sense, in the Blessed Sacrament, that we might all visit Him, adore Him, and place our worries before Him.

Now to return to last Sunday's readings and the house on sand and the house on rock.

I couldn't help but thinking that Our Lord again had a special meaning in this parable.

Aren't the false religions of this world like the houses built on sand? Think of the Protestant churches. Within mere years of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were arguing and at each others' throats. Did the Disciples of Christ behave like this? The Protestants have the word of a man (they can chose which of the three here named) to be the founder of their church, to dictate their theology, their Sunday service.

We have the word of Jesus Christ, who made St Peter the very first Pope, who founded the Catholic Church, who instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass. This has not changed in 2000 years.

I do not think it was an accident that Our Lord referred to a house built on rock, for most of us know that when Christ made St Peter the first Pope and head of His Catholic Church, he said (I shall paraphrase again) 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.' As Catholics should know this history, we should also know that Peter means Rock.

Thus when Our Lord says build your house on rock, I believe He was reminding us that our homes, our families and our souls belong in the security, the sanctity and the surety that is His Holy Catholic Church.

Only there will we get the strength we need, in the Sacraments but most especially through the Real Presence and Holy Communion with Our Lord, to find security in this world. For as many wise men, living and dead, have said, the strength we need is not our own, but the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ and where else can we hope to be near to Him, Body Blood Soul and Divinity but at the Altar of God?

Do We Need a Second Counter Reformation?

No, no, no! Where Protestant ideas end: yuch.

One of my favourite books about the Reformation, possibly after Cobbett's History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, is Rev B. J. Kidd DD's The Counter-Reformation 1550-1600.

I would say to any decent (or half-decent) Catholic: it's a book you simply must read! Originally published by the SPCK in 1933, it tells the story of Saints called to defend the Catholic Faith across Europe, in the shadow of the Protestant Revolution against the Catholic Church.

The Protestants had already won over vast tracts of Germany, Bavaria, Hungary, Poland... much of Europe was under threat (even France and Italy!) Only Spain seemed to stand firm in the Faith, and it was that nation which gave the world the Jesuits, a Holy Order that won back so much of Europe for the Catholic Faith -- a role which Protestants and Freemasons have still not forgiven the many Saints and Martyrs of that Order for (hence all the ridiculous Jesuit conspiracies).

One aspect of the Counter Reformation was, of course, the Council of Trent. That heroic Council of the Church which codified (not invented!) the Mass of Centuries, to stop abuses (sound familiar?) and gave us the Tridentine Mass which was the Mass for another 400+ years until the experiments of the 70s, which have seen Churches half-empty out... but I digress.

The Council of Trent saw so many Holy Souls gather to defend Holy Mother Church from many abuses that had given fuel to the Protestants who (as with all false creeds) use justifiable qualms to push through their despicable aims, in their case undermining Tradition, ripping apart the Sacraments, and trying to make 'everyman a priest' (talk I heard recently from a Catholic priest) which I consider totally against what Christ established His Church for. We have a Holy Priesthood (even if some sadly fall short of what is expected) in order to enable us to receive the Sacraments.

I am a Catholic. I may be a Saint (I don't think I am, but the possibility is there for us all). But I am not a priest. I am a Catholic. I am a father and a husband. I have my vocation in life.

And this, in a kind of circuitous route (how atypical of me) brings me back to this wonderful book.

You see, at the Council of Trent, some Catholic laity and priests turned up with an agenda. Some were powerful men of the world (especially from the 'German' sphere of influence) and they wanted the Catholic Church to move partway towards the Protestant stance on certain things, as a way to 'heal the rift' and bring the two sides back together.

Would this have worked? Give them an inch and they'll want a yard? There is no doubt the Council overturned many abuses and that in and of itself should have pleased any genuine souls who were irked with the Church. Let's face it, genuine Catholics can take umbrage with some Church policies, especially if they are seen to harm the Church, turn souls away, make the Church look grasping or underhand. We only have to look at the recent paedophile scandal in the Church. If the Church had reacted correctly, nipped it in the bud, acted in the best interests of souls (priestly and laity), routed out homosexuals in the priesthood and much else besides - it would have spared the Church another scandal, and more injuries.

Yet the Council of Trent reacted to the Protestant Revolution not only by ending genuine abuses which gave genuine grievances, it acted to solidify the Traditional Latin-Rite Mass, it sent the Jesuits, Dominicans and others to fight back for the Faith in the heartlands of the "enemy" -- we know that full well with Saint Martyrs created right in here in Wales.

I remember seeing a plaque at the bottom end of Crwys Road, where Cathays and Roath meet in Cardiff, showing the spot where our beloved Saints Philip Evans and John Lloyd were martyred. To quote the Real Cardiff site about the spot:

Here, in a plot known as 'the Cut Throats', more or less where the Road has its junction with Albany, stood the town gibbet. Nearby were plots called Cae Budr (the defiled field), Plwcca Halog (the unhallowed plot), and Pwll Halog (the unhallowed pool). Today they've got side streets built across them and are happily called Strathnairn, Glenroy and Keppoch. 

So we have, today, the examples of so many Holy Saints and Martyrs from this time on which to call for help and intercession on, in these worried times.They came to Welsh soil to win souls back for Christ and His Church through the Sacraments.

One of the aspects of the Council of Trent, as I said earlier, was the attempt of some to get Protestant "demands" from the Church. One of these was Communion in both kinds for the laity. As usual with these demands, there was the Protestant propaganda that hitherto the priests had been keeping something to themselves, and (especially with the idea that "we are all priests") then why should we all not partake in Communion under both kinds?

This always stuck in my mind on reading the book, because in more and more Catholic parishes today, we are seeing Communion in both kinds to the laity, and it is something, I have to say, I feel deeply uncomfortable about.

Now I am not a theologian, not even a lukewarm one, so I do not know all the theological reasons for this, but common sense tells me that Communion in both kinds is open to so much abuse. We all know of accidents with Communion in the form of the wafer: dropped and spilled hosts etc. How much more worrying would it be to witness drops and spills of the Chalice?

The other aspect of Communion in both kinds is that it gives the impression - especially to the young, immature, gullible and foolish - that the Communion host is not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety. That is, it gives/promotes the false idea that we have to receive the Body ("wafer") and Blood ("wine") together in order to have 'full communion' - i.e. that the Host in and of itself is somehow "not enough," and I think this comes back to the Protestant idea of "we are all priests" and therefore we all have the 'right' to Communion in both kinds, otherwise we are somehow 'cheated.'

My last bug-bear about Communion in both kinds is that it has given rise to what I personally consider one of the worst abuses of the post-Vatican 2 age (whether V2 instigated it is another matter). That is the appearance of the 'Eucharistic Minister.' Some non-priest given the green light to administer Communion to the laity. In many circles these have earned themselves the nomenclature Eucharistic Monsters for various reasons (and abuses).

For me personally the idea of someone who is not a priest administering Communion is an absolute sacrilege. And I mean that literally.

I do not like the idea - as I've outlined above - of the laity receiving Communion in both kinds, even at the hands of priests, but the idea that non-consecrated hands should administer Communion is just a non-starter. It seems such an abuse of the Holy Sacrament that I still find it difficult to believe that it is allowed and the idea of witnessing it fills me with dread and despair.

If Mother Teresa considered Communion in the hand the worst thing in the world, because it offends God for the Sacrament to be in unconsecrated hands, how much more might we say Eucharistic Ministers might do the same?

The Council of Trent did much to shore up the Catholic Faith, to reinvigorate a Faith which had been under attack for decades, with all the scandals (real and invented) used to attack the Church, with its enemies seeming to have the upper hand, with calls from within and without the Church for liberalisation in the Mass and the distribution of Communion... for some years we must have looked (from a worldly view) to be on the way out.

Does anyone else see the similarities with today?

We Must Celebrate the Ordinariate, But Be Watchful

John Broadhurst, ex-Anglican Bishop of Fulham, now a Catholic

Of course like every Catholic in England & Wales I am very excited about the conversion of Anglicans to our Faith.

As the Catholic Herald reported here the largest steps to date were taken by three ex-Anglican bishops, who converted to become, as I understand it, simple Catholics [like me - I'm a simple Catholic ;-)].

Now I have had all manner of opinions on this thrust at me by friends, but let me put my own out there.

I have to say that I am pleased at events, because it shows many Anglicans that their real home is in the Catholic Church. It also reminds more people that Anglicanism is a very strange heresy started by a Catholic king who wanted a divorce, and later taken over by Protestants (hence the Heinz 57 Varieties of Anglicans available!).

At the same time, my worry is that 'liberals' (maybe quasi-Catholics or media hirelings) who are always trying to nibble away at authentic Catholicism, will try and use these events to apply pressure for a married clergy, planned family mentality, etc. - in short to move the Catholic Church closer to the former Anglicanism of the converts, than bringing all the Anglican converts over to Catholicism as outlined in our catechisms (which kind of undermines the point of them converting in the first place!).

Of course we all know of the Eastern (Greek, Russian, Ukrainian) Uniat Churches that keep their own liturgies but moved back to recognise the Pope. Do some see the Ordinariate, established by the Pope, as being a version of this? But then I believe I'm right in saying that the Orthodox Mass is legitimate, whereas no Catholic seriously believes that transubstantiation takes place under Anglican auspices.

So is this a clever way to get Anglicans to convert en masse (but with free will) to the Faith of Our Fathers? Or a way to try and validate Anglican liturgy in a Catholic setting?

One friend of mine has said he is worried that the conversions are being 'fast tracked' and that the Anglican converts therefore won't know their Catholicism, possibly bringing heretical ideas with them (thus bolstering heretical ideas held by a vocal minority within the Church)

Another has said that the Ordinariate is a clever move by the Vatican to keep the Anglican converts under the direct control of the Vatican, and thus free of the "ecumania" of the Bishops Conference.

We have to be ecstatic at the turn of events that has brought more souls to our Church, and the fact that it is women 'bishops' and homosexual 'clergy' that has pushed Anglicans in recent years into the Catholic fold should be a warning to all Catholics to keep our Faith orthodox on the issues of married clergy, female clergy, homosexuals etc. because we have all seen the damage such moves have made to the Anglicans.

As the Catholic Herald article says:

We all received Communion (five of our new brethren, including all three former bishops, on the tongue) and, lo, it was done. We are in communion.

Perhaps more Catholics receiving Communion on the tongue, together with the demand that Papal Masses can only have Communion on the tongue, might see a move for more Catholics to move away from the horrifying and unedifying sight that is Communion being placed in unconsecrated hands (which Mother Theresa said is the worst thing in the world!).

In short we as Catholics must receive our formerly separated brethren with great joy and charity, hope for many positives, yet be watchful as always, certainly against ecumaniac suggestions as this.

I think the advent of the Ordinariate will give the many millions of Catholics in Britain renewed vigour in their Faith (following on from the Pope's visit) and a sharp lesson that what GK Chesterton would have labelled as 'fads' in churches only lead to people losing their beliefs or walking out of their church. If anyone tries to use it as a fop to more ecumaniacal behaviour then it will only lead to Catholics (of the 'old' or 'new' type) losing their Faith.

These good people wanted to join the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: not to see the Catholic Church become another variant of the liberal, all-things-to-all-men/women/transgenders mess they left behind.

Communion in the Hand: My Very Real Concerns

I have felt unhappy about Communion in the hand for quite sometime.

I believe that only an ordained priest should be able to handle the Blessed Sacrament, because even with the best will in the world, there is the chance of dirty/unwashed hands touching the sacrament, more chance of the host being fumbled and/or dropped and even the scandal of a host being pocketed, for whatever usage I dare not think.

I am sure most communicants don't have this in mind, but if this happens even just once as a result of Communion in the hand, then that is once too often and the damage is done to the Body and Blood of Christ.

I am no theologian or expert, so you would do far better to read the following article:


Rethinking Communion in the Hand by Jude A. Huntz, which delineates all my concerns far better than I ever could.

When I read about the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent (which codified existing Mass practices to give us the Tridentine Mass), those pushing for Protestantism in Europe were calling on the Church to allow Communion in both kinds, Mass in the 'vulgar' languages, tables instead of altars and Communion in the hand.

The Catholic Church retorted with the wonderful Council of Trent which ended so many abuses, and defended Catholicism by drawing a line in the sand against such abuses, designed to make people have less devotion to the Real Presence of Our Lord, and gave us Catholicism redefined, which in turn helped stop the Protestant rebellion and enabled the Jesuits, Dominicans etc. take back so many hearts and souls for our Faith.

Our Pope refuses to give Communion in the hand and its practice is illicit in most countries.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta said:

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

I sincerely think that this practice should be curtailed. The vast majority of those who receive Communion in the hand would not mind, as they probably do not know that the Church universally regards the practice as illicit or at best an indult under strict conditions.

We should pray that the Bishops of England & Wales would make the practice illicit here. I think it would increase devotion to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.