Thursday, May 8, 2014

THE SMOKE OF SATAN IS BECOMING A RAGING FIRE!


The post I have below on a woman filming her abortion and gloating about it in the most pathological way possible (she reminds me of an unrepentant murderer who gloats over his crimes) really is an example of the smoke of Satan becoming a raging fire, especially in the abortion industry which is very lucrative for so many.

Now there is a story about a "Black Mass" that Harvard University within the Archdiocese of Boston will allow on their campus. Earlier reports advertised it as a truly satanic ritual where a "consecrated Host" would be desecrated in this worship of the devil. Later the organization providing this sacrilege stated that it would not have a consecrated host (although I though that was necessary for a valid black Mass).  Can you trust or believe anyone associated with this sort of thing?

Now the Archdiocese of Boston has come out with a strong statement on this chilling event:

The Catholic community in the Archdiocese of Boston expresses its deep sadness and strong opposition to the plan to stage a “black mass” on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge.

For the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the Church provides clear teaching concerning Satanic worship. This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil.

In a recent statement, Pope Francis warned of the danger of being naïve about or underestimating the power of Satan, whose evil is too often tragically present in our midst. We call upon all believers and people of good will to join us in prayer for those who are involved in this event, that they may come to appreciate the gravity of their actions, and in asking Harvard to disassociate itself from this activity.

And Father Jabarek writes on his blog what many of us priests already know about Communion in the hand, that it is so easy for people to walk off with the Host to do God only knows what with the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord. We have found hosts on the floor, in missalettes and have had to chase people down walking out with the Host. We've seen parents break off a bit of the Host and give it to young children clamoring for it. In my previous parish a follower of Satan took the Host and immediately ran out of the church with it. I can assure you when Communion on the tongue and at an altar railing was the only method of distributing Holy Communion prior to Vatican II that what I have reported and have actually seen with Communion in the Hand seldom if ever happened. Read on:


Black Mass at Harvard – Communion in the Hand


Various blogs today are reporting about a “black mass” that is to be held at an institution connected with the once-great, but now-lost, Harvard University. (For example, see here.)

Fr. Finelli has rightly observed one of the things that is at the root of this problem: communion in the handSee his excellent post here.

Satanism seems to be on the rise throughout the West, but many people naively still hold on to the idea that “black masses” and such are things that really don’t happen, that they are legends, that they are only in movies, etc. No. They do happen. And the reception of Holy Communion in the hand makes it even easier – and more common – for people to steal the host and use it for such nefarious purposes.

Fr. Finelli also rightly points out that many priests who worry about such things are quickly dismissed as uptight, “rigid rubricists”. I would add that people also accuse such priests of being “scrupulous”. Neither accusation is in any way founded.

No, communion in the hand – I am more and more convinced – is a bad idea that has not contributed to greater devotion towards the Holy Eucharist. On the contrary! As Fr. Finelli points out, many people do not receive properly in the hand, no matter how much they are instructed. I can confirm this from my own experience. It is simply a bad idea. There is also no historical precedent for the manner in which it is currently received in the hand.

Read my previous post about this topic here. And be sure to read what Fr. Finelli wrote.
And please, whether you agree with me (and Fr. Finelli, and MANY other priests) or not, PLEASE say a prayer of reparation for this horrible thing that is happening in Massachusetts. This “black mass” is publicly known; but there are many others that happen unbeknownst to us. Whether a consecrated host is involved or not, these ceremonies are always very grave evils, outrageously offensive to God and all that is holy, and they always put immortal souls in danger of being eternally separated from God in hell.

Perhaps we can all, as an act of reparation, make a resolution always to receive Holy Communion reverently on the tongue! At the very least, let us take some time in prayer to console our Lord and beg that he bring the offenders to conversion. May Our Lady of the Rosary and Blessed Bartolo Longo attain this grace for them all!
* * *
Want something more substantial to read about the problems with communion in the hand? Read this short and excellent book by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
* * *
As this is the sort of topic that tends to get some people really worked up, I may not post every comment received, especially if it is evident that the commenter did not read both my previous post and Fr. Finelli’s post, both linked above. Think and read before you comment.

58 comments:

Joseph Johnson said...

I have never thought that Communion in the hand is a good thing. Most of us know its history in recent times (one of those things that was not officially authorized but started in disobedience, became widespread in some places, and then officially allowed by indult, after the fact, rather than condemned and resisted by legitimate authority).

The current prescribed way of reception in the hand is not the same way it was done in the "early Church" (see "Dominus Est" by Bishop Athanasius Schneider). It is an example of a modern refabrication of an antiquarian practice that would have been better left in the history books. We have a better and deeper understanding of the Eucharist than we did in the early Church times when people picked the Host up from the palm of their hands with their tongues (and when women were required to have a cloth placed over their hands before receiving).

We need to return to external practices which emphasize our deeply held belief in the Real Presence: Communion received on the tongue while kneeling with a paten held under the Communicant's chin while receiving and careful handling of Hosts by the ordained with purification of fingers over the ablution after distributing.

How our U.S. Bishops ever came up with the notion that receiving while standing would be the norm and "custom" in the U.S. completely escapes me given the fact that it was not the custom (kneeling was) until they took it upon themselves to force this change.

This whole handling/reception of Communion thing is one of my biggest criticisms of the Novus Ordo Mass (even though it was not originally part and parcel of it). If only more priests (and bishops, especially) would consider these issues more carefully and stop accepting without criticism the current 1970's-80's practices and norms that are detrimental to Faith and doctrine.

JBS said...

I suggest that abuses remain rather rare, and that a determined abuser will still find a way to recover and abuse even a Host placed upon his tongue.

The primary reason to recover the traditional Roman manner of Communication is simply to increase awareness among the faithful of the Mystery being offered them.

In hindsight, since Communion onto the hand had no established precedent in the Roman Church, this innovation should have been permitted, if at all, only at ferial and conventual Masses.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think for one minute that we will not soon be seeing these " black masses" being done on so called Catholic university campuses. I can easily see this abomination being not only tolerated but promoted at Georgetown, Notre Dame etc. and as usual nothing will be done. But just dare to celebrate the old pre Vatican II mass and that university will be under Vatican investigation, it will be persecuted and destroyed. No charity or understanding will be shown to Traditional Catholic belief or practice ........ but Satanism, well we have to be pastoral and merciful, right.

"Catholic" universities such as Notre Dame etc., not only tolerate such evil as abortion and active homosexual sexual activity, it's promoted. Is it really that much of a leap to tolerating or even promoting Satanism by people who promote evil. I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Fr.,

I am at work and don't want to look up this site on the internet right now, but Google "hook-up truck" to read about a truck cruising the streets of San Francisco offering a mobile "safe" place for couples to have sex. Disgusting. The owner calls it an "art" project. There are some days I think we are living in hell.

Siena said...

JBS,

While I agree with your latter sentiments, not so with the former. Maybe an abuser will always find a way, but let's don't be enablers. I myself have direct knowledge of three occasions of abuses. If that number could have been cut down to one, say, by banning communion in the hand, then go for it, especially since a lot of these abuses are less extreme than black masses (e.g., a Protestant who receives and doesn't know what to do with the Host who leaves it in a hymnal). But I'm sure the American bishops will do nothing, and in doing nothing, in my view, they are being negligent (at least) and accomplices in profanation of the sacrament. Of course, the Church isn't in crisis, no, sir, definitely not . . .

A quick survey of Massachusetts law suggests that if a consecrated Host were used, it may qualify for a hate crime (taking a Host under false pretenses motivated by religious prejudice), but I doubt anyone up there will bring this up (who are they to judge?). Still, the walkback may be an attempt to avoid something like that, since it would be practically impossible to prove, short of the satanists' admission, whether or not what they were using was consecrated.

Rich Maffeo said...

As St. Paul wrote to the church at Rome, we have permitted all kinds of murderous sin in abortion mills, and all kinds of sexual perversions, that God is leaving us to our own desires (Romans 1:22-32).

In 1937 Richard Niebuhr wrote prophetic words in The Kingdom of God in America because THIS is the God we hear about in many of our churches: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

When the Church takes a :John the Baptist type stand against evil in our country, God will begin a revival. But if we keep preaching the same Love-without-Discipline dribble, we will see things only get worse.


Anonymous said...

Father, I was a seminarian at St John's Minor for the Study of Philosophy. Every year, just prior to "Halloween", the seminary would be VERY GUARDED about the Holy Tabernacle. It seems in the years prior to my time there, it had become common for satanists to slyly enter churches and steal hosts to perform desecrations of various types. Of all the states in the union, I would rank MA. as one with a peculiar proclivity to this type of evil. Although shocking, it is not surprising to me, given what I now know of the local population.

Anonymous said...

I am a conservative Roman Catholic who does not receive Holy Communion in the hand EVER. It is an outrageous insult and offends God seriously. I have observed this when I came to the U.S. in the mid 1980's that parishioners in Catholic churches in America receive the Holy Eucharist in the hand which is totally wrong. Even when I witnessed this happening I never imitated them at all because I knew deep within my conscience that it insults and offends our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

qwikness said...

I think this has more to do with Atheists than Satanists. Abortion supporters were yelling "Hail Satan"
at Pro Lifers. Same with those guys that want to put that statue in Oklahoma State house. They are trying to be cute but this is a back door way for Satan to overtake the useful idiots of Atheism.

anonymous said...

Concerning receiving the host in the hand vs the tongue: Receiving by hand has been approved by the Church, as is receiving on the tongue. Both should be done with reverence. It is very easy to slip a host out of the mouth whether the host is placed on the tongue by a priest or placed in the mouth by hand. Perhaps we shoud offer a tridium of rosaries for those participating in this black mass.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I've always been a big supporter of the option of receiving Holy Communion on the hand when the rubrics for this are followed. I've become more and more concerned about it because so many don't follow the rubrics for this either through ignorance or simply being obvious to how they receive in the hand.

For example, we teach our children the proper way to receive in the hand. Yet at our school Masses, they cup their little hands making it hard to place the host in their hand, and take it a go, often placing the host in their mouth on the move.

With adults, many grab for the host, have both hands even where one doesn't know which hand to place it on.

I watched a bit of the Easter Sunday Mass from the National Shrine in Washington. The camera was often on people as they received Holy Communion either from the Cardinal or other clergy. Most who received in the hand, left the communion station with the host still in their hand and only on the walk toward their pew did they place the host in their mouth.


Pater Ignotus said...

Anonymous - Receiving communion in the hand is not an "insult" to God, not is it "totally wrong."

It did not insult God to be carried in the womb of His mother, to be held in the arms of his foster-father, to be greeted with a hug by his friends, to touch those who were sick.

If, when in the flesh, Jesus was not "insulted" by human touch, why on earth is it offensive now?

John Nolan said...

'Deep sadness' (Ah!). 'Strong opposition' (Well, we know this doesn't amount to much). 'Contrary to charity and goodness' (Thus the NuChurch of Nice). Let's hold out a hand of friendship to devil-worshippers and convince them that they would be much happier with us in the feminized touchy-feely hand -holding doctrinally fuzzy Church of the 21st century.

ANATHEMA SIT! Gene, bring your arsenal of weapons and I will fly over and assist you to consign these people to the infernal regions they belong to and indeed hope for. And without sounding immodest, I have always been a bloody good shot.

Henry said...

PI: "If, when in the flesh, Jesus was not ‘insulted’ by human touch, why on earth is it offensive now?"

I must wonder whether this irrelevant straw man argument merely an evasion of the real issue here.

Surely, no reasonable person on any side of this issue seriously thinks or has ever argued that human touch is in itself offensive to Christ. (If so, wouldn’t He be as concerned about the flesh in the mouth as the flesh of the hands?)

No, it's the indifferent or irreverent human behavior that that the modern practice has encouraged, that’s offensive to those who truly believe in His Real Presence. One does not need to be a mind reader or make a moral judgment to sense this behavior. It is all too evident visually wherever large numbers of communicants are observed.

To the extent that I'm convinced no one can argue there's nothing wrong with the currently prevalent practice, unless he has a different view of the Real Presence than the traditional one.

No one. However one may protest the contrary, a belief that He is really and truly present in the consecrated host--in a way different and more substantial than any of His other "presences"--is simply incompatible with a tolerant acceptance of the insults to the Divinity of Christ that are routine wherever communion in the hand is a norm. The only exceptions being pious folk who've never really thought seriously about the issue.

Anonymous said...

I'm an EMHC at my parish and I always grab the cup station near the side door. Every time I serve, I see people take the Host in their hand and proceed to walk right out the door. Or they would, but I block their way and insist (politely) that they consume the Host right now. Whenever I see someone else sign up for that spot I always warn them. I haven't received on the hand in years, and I HATE the practice. People with dirty hands, or drawing all over their palms - and these aren't poor, homeless people either who might have an excuse (but not use the sink in the restrooms in the narthex?). No people, I'm not giving you a cookie, this is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. :(

Bob Belcher said...

Unfortunately, this discussion seems to have deviated into a discussion on Communion in the hand, so, annoying as such deviations are, I think it's important to make a few points to clear the air:

Communion in the hand is not a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and for centuries was strictly prohibited for a number of good reasons, not the least of which was making the theft of a Host even harder.

In the 1960's some Dutch (no surprise) bishops began permitting this practice. Pope Paul was vehemently against it, but he was even more vehement in his desire to be "pastoral". With that in mind, he told bishops conferences that he would grant an INDULT (special permission) to receive Communion in the hand if they could prove that receiving in the hand was a tradition in their country.

By the early '70's the liberal and dissident bishops of America brought the issue forward and a vote was taken at the national bishops' conference meetings on several occasions. Leading the charge was Cardinal Bernardin (again, no surprise). Finally, he forced it through by changing the rules and allowing absentee bishops to send in their votes, passing the issue by a slim majority. The U.S. was granted the indult.

When this was implemented in parishes, most did not bother to tell the folks in the pews that they could still receive in the tongue…no, they were usually told "THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE COMMUNION NOW, " as if a new rule was in force that demanded it. In most parishes today, First Communicants are not taught that they can receive on the tongue. The vast majority of Catholics have no clue that they receive in the hand as a special permission. They are unaware that the worldwide norm for receiving Communion in the Church IS ON THE TONGUE.

This is important for three reasons:

1) We have lost the once profound reverence paid to the Blessed Sacrament. What was once the privilege of the ordained is now viewed as the right of the laity.

2) The practice of Communion in the hand was born of disobedience to the Church's authority. It was never a local tradition in the US, so its implementation here has a pedigree of shameful dishonesty on the part of the bishops who lobbied for it.

3) To say that those who wish to abuse the Eucharist would do so anyway, even if it was offered on the tongue is absurd. That's like saying abortions will happen anyway, let's keep it legal or people will take drugs anyway, so let's legalize it. There is a difference between discouraging abuses and enabling them.

Anonymous said...

This whole Black Mass business is disgusting. However, I think we should see it for what it is: A cheap publicity stunt contrived to elicit shock.

I think we should be far more concerned about the smoke of Satan that is clearly manifesting itself in the highest levels of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Father McDonald,
Is there any concerted effort by priests who are aware of the Satanic activity and other abuses to press bishops to address the subject? How can lay people begin to lobby for change that will reduce the dangers? It's important to make people aware of the problem as you are doing, but how do we improve the situation? It’s clear that regardless of whether someone agrees or not that Holy Communion in the hand is irreverent, that we may be entering a new era when the practice is no longer permissible for practical reasons. If Satanic rituals become mainstream cultural events as these reports seem to indicate and we know that valid black mass requires devil worshipers to have consecrated Hosts then it would make sense to implement practices that offer the greatest security. This is another example of the intense spiritual war that rages and allowing Communion in the hand is tantamount to surrender or being traitors. It’s great that the Boston diocese issues a statement, but how about a moratorium on Communion in the hand because the situation demands it?
Mike

Anonymous said...

It is sad. I am very conservative, also. I am a mom and I keep my head covered not only at Mass but all times in the day. We need some radical changes. Padre Pio wouldn't put up with all this. We need to be back when on Sunday's their were no stores open. What happen to modesty, preaching on Hell, and mortal sin? God help us.

Pater Ignotus said...

Henry - So, you would have no problem, then, with communion in the hand if it is reverent and respectful? If so, I would agree.

Anonymous certainly seemed to say that in ALL cases, communion in the hand is insulting and wrong.

I think one can be just as irreverent and disrespectful receiving on the tongue as one can be receiving in the hand.

If our goal is to eliminate all possibility of disrespect to the Blessed Sacrament, let's just stop giving communion to the laity. The sacrifice is 100% complete with only reception by the priest after all...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I worry that bishops of a certain age, usually my age and older, are so imbued with the theology that standing for Holy Communion and receiving on the hand is more in line with being adults rather than children and new and improved over the previous 1500 year tradition of kneeling and receiving on the tongue that they don't want to admit the problems Communion in the hand and standing has caused and perhaps contributed to a lack of reverence, respect or even belief in the Real Presence of Christ.
I don't know how widespread Satanic worship is and I think it is small right now in number, but who knows with all that is happening today in the world. The greater problems I see are the lack of respect and intentionality from a goodly number in how they receive Holy Communion and intentional or unintentional desecration of the host by taking it home, dropping it and treating it as an object or souvenir.
So many today still don't want to be called pre-Vatican II which was used as a great insult in the early 1970's.

Gene said...

John Nolan, It is tempting, isn't it…LOL! However, if a swing to the right ever occurs in this country (and I hope for it every day), the longer this kind of nonsense is allowed to go on the more protracted and extreme will be the swing of the pendulum.

JBS said...

Anonymous asks, "Is there any concerted effort by priests...to press bishops to address the subject?" Dear anonymous, priests do not press bishops to do anything, ever.

JBS said...

I sort of agree with our dear Pater Ignotus. While I think Communion on the tongue should be the preference, I also think it is silly to suggest that Communion via the hand is intrinsically sacrilegious.

There's really no such thing as Communion in the hand, sacramentally speaking. It is only by placing the Sacred Host or Precious Blood into one's mouth that one receives the sacrament. This being the case, my question is, why do so many communicants prefer to become 'middle men' in this process by, in effect, self-communicating? What is the spiritual benefit of this novelty?

rcg said...

We confuse restraint with punishment in the same way we confuse judgement with consignment. Who am I to judge? Who am I not to?

Henry said...

PI and JBS,

Yes, I’d agree than it’s specious to suggest there’s anything inherently wrong with communion in the hand. Indeed, if it were universally practiced today as it was in that apparently very brief period referred to in the famous quotation of St. Cyprian—receiving the Host on the right palm held like a throne by the left hand and then (instead of grabbing it and placing it in the mouth) bowing the head towards the hand with utmost reverence and even awe and adoration to take it directly from the enthroned hand into the mouth—then it might well seem superior to receiving on the tongue.

However, as I understand it, this was abandoned historically and replaced by reception on the tongue because in practice the reverence with which it was originally introduced began inevitably to deteriorate. And no doubt the casual indifference in reception commonly seen today is much worse than then.

Likewise, there’s nothing inherently wrong with standing, as opposed to kneeling. In the Eastern church, reception while standing is practiced with a reverence that the Western Church can only envy.

Our problem here and now is that religious faith and practice is such that nothing short of enforcing the universal norm of kneeling for reception on the tongue will have the corrective catechetical effect that is so desperately needed. Aside from any argument based on debatable principles, I think it obvious that no improvement in prevalent attitudes toward communion and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist will take place until this universal norm is again in place. To the extent that I believe anyone who disagrees with this as a simple prediction either has his head in the sand, or it’s full of sand, or he simply had a different view of the Eucharistic and hence disagrees with the objective.

Anon friend said...

Fr. JBS makes the best point of this whole discussion at 2:36 ... Why indeed!! And that is precisely why I stopped receiving in hand 14 yrs ago. I also "resigned" as an EMHC except for far-flung homebound who hadn't seen a priest/deacon in 3 months or more--THAT is a very real problem in large parishes with one priest/deacon that desperately needs to be solved.

jac said...

Our holy Mother the RCC is blind since Vatican II. She DECLINES to see the problem, si,nce the "problem" is a direct outcome of the council.

JBS said...

Henry,

I certainly understand the value of your suggestion that the traditional practice be mandated, but I think Pope Emeritus Benedict was on to something when he started using that prie dieu. If bishops and pastors would just place one at each Communion station and invite the faithful to consider using it, this approach could prove highly effective over time. It could even serve as a prelude to improved future legislation on the issue.

Anonymous said...

Do you not think that in the interest of preserving the sanctity of the sacrament, each archdiocese should institute a mouth only policy? This may be considered a radical rejection of Vatican II, but it is a recognition of the increased strife with the forces of evil. To not respond is directly is to fall victim to such powers.

Anonymous said...

I am all for receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, but I don't think it is an act of charity to receive that way when I have a nasty snotty cold. Then everyone else in line behind me will catch it! Better to get dirty looks from the "good crowd" than pass along a cold.

Henry said...

"This may be considered a radical rejection of Vatican II."

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this has anything whatsoever to do with Vatican II?

No one at the Council ever mentioned or even envisioned communion in the hand (nor while standing). These things are contrary to practices that were taken for granted by the bishops at Vatican II. The abuses that have become systemic since Vatican II are themselves rejections of Vatican II. If the recommendations of Vatican II had actually been implemented, rather than hijacked and roadblocked, I suspect the Church would be healthy and vibrant in faith and liturgy today, and there would be little for anyone to complain about, hardly even enough to support blogs like this.

Henry said...

JBS, as an interim strategy, I'd agree. But the Church cannot truly recover until the errors of recent decades are forthrightly admitted and corrected at the highest levels. As Catholics, we know well that confession and purpose of amendment are prerequisite to lasting redemption.

Anonymous said...

Many are going to hell. Anyone disagrees with this?

Anonymous said...

How can reverting to Communion on the tongue be considered a "radical rejection" of Vatican
II? There is NOTHING in the V2 Documents or, for that matter, the Novus Ordo Missae of the Consilium that even mentions Communion in the hand.

Anonymous said...

Receiving our lord directly on the tongue makes it softer and a quieter entry into the soul of the people of God.

Please continue to encourage to receive Communion on the tongue, with hands joined in prayerful manner.

Thank you for the article
Many blessings
Regina

Joseph Johnson said...

Why would the suppression of Communion in the hand be considered "a radical rejection of Vatican II"?

As I mentioned in my lead-off comment to this post (and as explained later in great detail by Bob Belcher), Communion in the hand was not originally a part of the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) promulgated by Pope Paul VI. I don't remember seeing Communion in the hand in my home parish until quite a few years after this Mass was put in place.

Nathanael said...

Maybe this is what the dissenting voices on the U.S. Supreme Court were talking about this week: open and honest inclusion of all faiths. Isn’t this just another example of breaking the barriers of prejudice towards religious minorities?

Who wants to hear “Ave Satani” (from the Omen) at the next local government meeting?

Oh wait!

1. The text is in Latin (and its style was copied from Gregorian chant) – that alone is enough to kill it for some people.
2. And the nice fellow it is about certainly believes in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ – that just might kill the idea for others.

Oh well…. ;)

Bee said...

I'm a Baby Boomer who grew up in Chicago, and was a kid when the changes of Vatican II were implemented, and a teen when the reception of communion was changed. One year in the late 1980's when I was teaching CCD to 4th graders (in Chicago), our books took us through a review of the sacraments. When we covered Holy Communion, to give them a bit of background and history, I began to talk to the children about the "used to be Church" telling them about what the communion rail in church was about (they must have wondered) and how we used to take Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. By coincidence, the Director of Religious Education had come into the classroom to observe my class that day, and when I was speaking about this topic, she (being VERY liberal) turned red and almost had a FIT as I was describing kneeling for Communion. She actually interrupted my class to say very loudly and forcefully, THE BISHOPS HAVE MANDATED WE WILL RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION IN THE HAND!!!!! Needless to say, both the children and I were shocked at her interjection, and I went on with the class, telling them that, yes, communion in the hand is the proper way to receive and reviewing the proper posture for it.
Only many years later did I realize the option always existed for us to receive on the tongue, albeit while standing. The DRE must have known this, and was furious that I might teach the children they have the option. I am mentioning this just to show what forces have been pushing our Church away from piety for a long time.
One more thing: one week (because of my schedule), I attended a Mass at parish near my home that is administered by the priests of Opus Dei. At communion, I saw people not only standing in line to receive, but also kneeling at the communion rail. Truly, my heart leapt with joy at the opportunity to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue. I never forgot how happy I was to renew that posture. Now I attend a parish that also keeps to that posture, as well as allowing reception while standing, either in the hand or on the tongue. I wish we would all go back to receiving while kneeling and on the tongue.
Thank you for writing such a thoughtful and incisive article about this issue, and abuses of the Eucharist.

Hammer of Modernists said...

Bee,

Exactly what I mean when I discuss liberal fascism. When they don't have "a place at the table," they insist (loudly) that all they want is a place at the table. When they finally get a place at the table, they censor everyone else, often by lies (the bishops have mandated communion in the hand as the norm--convenient the DRE didn't mention the last three words).

A shame that I wasn't there. I would have had some mighty good sport with the modernist fascist.

Anonymous said...

Will the Satanists be perfoming the Black Mass according to the extraordinary form or the ordinary form?

Has the Black Mass been revised to allow for more active participation from the people? I hope so. You know it must be off putting to the average well meaning Satanist to feel left out with only the high priest performing the blasphemy.

rcg said...

My only solice is imaging their apoplexy when they sing 'Ring of Fire' instead of playing 'Rite of Spring'. Modernism has corrupted everything.

Henry said...

Will they at least have the decency to do it in Latin? A Black Mass in common vernacular would be almost too vulgar and offensive to bear. Especially considering that there probably isn't a faithful new translation of the Black Mass.

(Perhaps you get the idea that I don't consider a one-time sophomoric Black Mass (however blasphemous) for a bunch mindless adolescents anywhere near as harmful as the pandemic sacrilege that is part and parcel with communion in the hand today.)

Gene said...

RCG, There is a 70's vintage country song out there called, "They Caught the Devil and Put Him in Jail in Eudora, Arkansas." I think it was by Tony Joe White.

So, let 'em worship a loser:

"…He trusted to have equalled the Most High,
If he opposed; and, with ambitious aim
Against the throne and monarchy of God,
Raised impious war in Heaven and battle proud,
With vain attempt.
Him the Almighty hurled, headlong burning
From the ethereal sky, with hideous ruin and combustion, down to bottomless perdition,
There to dwell in adamantine chains and penal fire,
Whom dost dare the Omnipotent to arms…"

Anonymous said...

Who will the so-called Black Mass be harming? Nobody but their 'celebrants' and congregations, and that they will be doing in a big way, of course.

Not unlike the baying rent-a-mob mocking Christ as he hung from the cross. They thought they were derisively condemning Christ, while all the time it was they, themselves, that were being mocked by the Almighty.

The difference is that, now, there is no reason to suppose that God would feel He must allow his 'hands to be tied', and He must take whatever blasphemies they seek to dish out to him.

nsnHe could, and I imagine, would, de(super)nature the Host as easily as he had divinised it.

Gene said...

Yes, but wouldn't it be pure delight if we could gather for Mass and then proceed to the place of the Satan worship and deal with them as they would have in the 13th century? YES!!! But, that is considered naughty now.

Anonymous 2 said...

These are some of the sad consequences of living in a disenchanted world. Our fundamental problem is metaphysical.

We must re-enchant the world, so that we can see its sacredness again, and Catholics must help lead the way (and this goes way beyond just re-introducing the TLM or addressing the way one receives, although these things are part of it too). And no, I am not talking about New Age mysticism (to recur to the theme of an earlier thread). We have enough resources in our own tradition.

Anonymous 2 said...

Wonderful quote, Gene. I haven’t studies Paradise Lost since high school. Thank you for the memory!!

Anonymous said...

I wonder if it will be a guitar Black Mass or a Folk Black Mass?

Have the Satanists allowed lay people to desecrate the host or is it still reserved to the priests and priestesses?

I heard they now have a Rite of a Desecration in the Absense of a High Priest/Priestess.

I also heard that they will be having parts in Spanish and English as they have done away with the Latin.

They abolished the cincture sworn with there robes and the hoods are optional.

Alnd they also celebrate towards the people.

If you ask me they have lost so much of the mystery and the magic of the Traditional Black Mass.

They don't even use real candles anymore. Just plastic tubes filled with oil that give the illusion of a candle. Satantanists from the 10th century wouldn't even recognize it anymore. All the mystery has been removed.

Gene said...

Anon 2, RE: re-enchant the world. Very nicely stated.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Satanism is now going public in a most blatant, unashamed way. The good people of Boston could protest this unholy sacrilege by showing up outside this black mass and stand up for Jesus. It would never be allowed if it trashed the Muslim religion.

I believe it's time to return to receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue only. This open blasphemy will spread everywhere now.
But, if we think about it, how many Catholics who receive Communion are doing so with faith and love and a contrite and humble heart? How much desecration is going on among Catholics who receive with mortal sin on their souls and don't bother to go to confession at all?
Do we really believe He is present in the Holy Eucharist when we take Communion on Sundays? If we believe, do we welcome Jesus with love?
Let's build up our own faith and receive Him with love and welcome him into our lives every time we receive Him and do this as an act of love for the outrages by which He is offended.

navynurse said...

How can respect occur when so many pastors allow the church to become a football stadium before and after mass. Constant talk, indecent dress and many other behaviors are allowed. I finally wrote to the bishop about the constant noise in many parishes in my diocese and was instructed not to be critical. Unless there is definitive guidance from the pulpit these abuses and many more are going to escalate!

Nathanael said...

To Anonymous @ 5:43 pm:

Don’t worry – if you have been watching NBC then you know that Satan’s son is on the way.

And this time he will not look like Mia Farrow!

I only hope he will reinvigorate this faith community with vim-and-vigor to update (re-interpret) this misunderstood faith for the modern world. I suspect he will go a long way in shutting the windows of blasphemy to keep the sulfur of hell in. After all, dialogue - it keeps the un-holy spirits a-movin!

Anonymous said...

This practice of receiving in the hand is a sign that we are about to receive God's Holy Justice. Take cover folks by living by His Holy Will.

maria ashton said...

The Black Mass is not being caused by taking the Eucharist in the hand. As a lay person, I have been aware of many Catholics who think nothing of practicing astrology, using tarot cards, going to psychics, calling on spirit guides, having their palm read, energy therapy, practicing yoga and chanting mantras. How many sermons have we heard in church regarding these practices?
In fact when I have complained to the Clergy, treat me as if I am the one that is wrong. How many of you parents are aware of what is being taught in the Classroom?
How many parents continue to take your children to Disney effents and do not pay attention to the occult symbols used by Disney to influence your children. How many parents continue to dress your little children as witches and devils and go trick or treating on the Satanic Holiday - Halloween? Wake up Catholics lets quit arguing over veils and hands and pay attention to what going on around us.

Anonymous said...

I NEVER receive the precious body in the hand. I remember hearing a priest complain about people taking it on the tongue that they "slobber all over you" and I have received it from priests that are hesitant to place it on the tongue, but I REFUSE to take it in my hand. I used to take it that way many years ago, but finally decided that taking it in the hand takes away from the reverence and realization that THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST HIMSELF! I really wish we had the communion rails back again, so that we could kneel to receive, and I realize that in different parishes there are a substantial amount of elderly who cannot kneel to receive, but you can't tell me they couldn't work something out. After Vat ll they ripped them all out! WHY? The excuse I heard was that they could get through the communion line faster. LOL! For what? They haven't noticed there's no one left in the pews anymore to hurry up for?

Barbara said...

A few years ago, I read a book about the Theresa Neumann, seer and stigmatist from Bavaria. A very simple, holy woman, she communicated to the interviewer the practice of receiving communion in the hand was a grave offense to Our Lord, as well as the practice of having lay Eucharistic ministers as well. ONLY consecrated hands (clergy) should be handling the holy HOST. I was a Eucharistic minister at the time, and immediately declined that ministry after I read that book. I always went to confession before handling the hosts at Mass, but felt very sad and uneasy knowing that other EM's did not. I was a teenager when the Norvus Ordo Mass was introduced and always found it unsettling because the changes were so profound. Sacred music was almost abandoned and guitars and bongos were the norm. Communion rails were gone, and so was preaching on the "last things (heaven, hell & purgatory)." Some priests were even telling people in the confessional that if something they did "felt" wrong, then it was a sin. At Fatima, our lady gave the three children secrets which were to be revealed in 1960. One of them was about the terrible schism in the Church, which was the "smoke of satan entering our Church. All of this has come to pass. She always asks her faithful devotees to pray very much for her Son's consecrated as they are apostles/shepherds. Oh, if they could only know how much Our Lord is offended! May each one of us who is aware of this terrible schism do a holy hour before the Blessed Sacrament each day or once/week in reparation!

Anonymous said...


You know the tree by the fruit and what a soured fruity bunch you are.



…43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'

44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…"

To the gun slinging John Wayne wannabe - watch what you wish for. We reap what we sow.

We all put Christ on the Cross ?

Taking that on board might lead to a show of genuine humility - very sorely lacking here.