Saturday, February 24, 2018

WILL THE POPE SWAT CARDINAL SARAH OVER THIS?

 This is very powerful!

For [Cardinal] Sarah, "The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine. Certainly, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers”.

This is a post I did several years ago; it is followed by the excellent article about Cardinal Sarah:

UNINTENTIONAL SACRILEDGE OF THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST VIA LARGE CRUMBS!

Do you see the large fragment to the left of the large un-consecrated host--that's a crumb on my black trousers as I was breaking the large host! More about this below!

Another picture of crumbs or large fragments from large unconsecrated host I was breaking at the scored part of these hosts!


For the past 30 years I have used the large host in the photo above for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But no more! I've become more conscious of the fact that when these are "broken" after the Consecration of the Mass, during the "Breaking of the Bread" that large fragments of the host fly all over the place, on clothes, corporal, floor and elsewhere.

I saw this happen this morning in my office as I sat at my desk chair with a Tupperware container. I was breaking the large breads and realized that against my black trousers and the florescent light, I could see large and small fragments flying everywhere! If I had filmed this in slow motion, it would look like these fragments would become like an aerosol spray or a sneeze from a person's mouth filmed in slow motion. One can't see this during Mass with the white altar cloth background and the lighting of the Church.

I have already made a decision no longer to use the large, whole wheat hosts because I would find large fragments on the corporal after the Breaking of the Bread. But I had no idea to what extent this was happening. On top of that, the broken hosts from the large one have a very jagged edge with large fragments easily falling as these are given to communicants.

I am not a scrupulous person, but I do believe what the Church teaches about transubstantiation and that every fragment of the host no matter how large or small is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Risen Lord. Accidents happen with small fragments and certainly our Risen Lord can take care of Himself. However, knowing now from what I have seen, I cannot in good conscience continue using these large hosts.

We are using the Cavanaugh hosts in white bleached wheat and the traditional smaller large host for the priest beginning this Sunday!

I copy this full article from LaStampa's Vatican Insider which is very supportive of Pope Francis. The emphasis is the "Insider's" emphasis. Please take note of Cardinal Sarah's "crumb" theology, a term of derision use by progressives:

Sarah: There is a diabolical attack on the Eucharist, which must be received kneeling and on the tongue

The Prefect of Divine Worship writes it in the preface to Bortoli's book “The distribution of Communion in the hand: a historical, juridical, and pastoral overview”. The examples of Wojtyla, Mother Teresa and Benedict XVI
VATICAN CITY
“Communion must be received on the tongue, kneeling. Not in any other way".Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, emphasizes this. The prelate wrote it in a foreword to Don Federico Bortoli's book “La Distribuzione della Comunione sulla Mano: Profili Storici, Giuridici e Pastorali” (“The distribution of Communion in the hand: a historical, juridical, and pastoral overview”) in which he denounces a diabolical multiple attack on the Eucharist.  
  
The premise of the cardinal is based on the Angel of Fatima, "Before the apparition of the Virgin Mary, in the Spring of 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, and said to them: “Do not be afraid, I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” In the Spring of 1916, at the third apparition of the Angel, the children realized that the Angel, who was always the same one, held in his left hand a chalice over which a host was suspended. He gave the holy Host to Lucia, and the Blood of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, who remained on their knees, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God”. 

Sarah affirms that this scene "shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ” and that "The prayer of reparation dictated by the Angel, unfortunately, is anything but obsolete " the cardinal says.  

The Cardinal then proceeds to explain "the outrages that Jesus receives in the Holy Host". "In the first place, there are the outrages against the Sacrament itself: the horrible profanations, of which some ex-Satanist converts have reported and offer gruesome descriptions, along with Sacrilegious Communions, not received in the state of God’s grace, or not professing the Catholic faith (I refer to certain forms of the so-called “intercommunion”). 
  
 Second element, "all that could prevent the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, especially the errors sown in the minds of the faithful so that they no longer believe in the Eucharist". For Sarah, "The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine. Certainly, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers”. 
  
Thus, we can understand that “the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it". The purpose of Satan is “the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host".  
  
And “this robbery attempt follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence.’ Many theologians persist in mocking or snubbing the term ‘transubstantiation’ despite the constant references of the Magisterium” 
  
For the Prefect of Divine Worship, “faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa". Receiving Communion on the hand “undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments. On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him!” He exclaims.  
  
On the contrary, “inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is ‘up to a certain point’.” 
  
  
The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs “is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful"Sarah writes, “While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food”. 
   
“The liturgy is made up of many small rituals and gestures — each of them is capable of expressing these attitudes filled with love, filial respect and adoration toward God. That is precisely why it is appropriate to promote the beauty, fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church, that is, the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling". The Cardinal says, "The greatness and nobility of man, as well as the highest expression of his love for his Creator, consists in kneeling before God. Jesus himself prayed on his knees in the presence of the Father".  
  
 In this regard, Sarah proposes the example of "two great saints of our time: St. John Paul II and St. Teresa of Calcutta. Karol Wojtyła’s entire life - he recalls was marked by a profound respect for the Holy Eucharist. Despite being exhausted and without strength, he always knelt before the Blessed Sacrament. He was unable to kneel and stand up alone. He needed others to bend his knees and to get up. Until his last days, he wanted to offer us a great witness of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.   

Sarah then asks, "Is it really so humiliating to bow down and remain kneeling before the Lord Jesus Christ?” 

“St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, an exceptional religious who no one would dare regard as a traditionalist, fundamentalist or extremist, whose faith, holiness and total gift of self to God and the poor are known to all, had a respect and absolute worship of the divine Body of Jesus Christ. Certainly, she daily touched the “flesh” of Christ in the deteriorated and suffering bodies of the poorest of the poor”. And yet, “filled with wonder and respectful veneration, Mother Teresa refrained from touching the transubstantiated Body of Christ. Instead, she adored him and contemplated him silently, she remained at length on her knees and prostrated herself before Jesus in the Eucharist. Moreover, she received Holy Communion in her mouth, like a little child who has humbly allowed herself to be fed by her God”. 

Another question, " Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? He then admonishes, "May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue’. 

Sarah then argues that receiving the Eucharist on the hand has become praxis for the "liturgical reform that should have been homogeneous with the previous rites, a special concession has become the picklock to force and empty the safe of the Church’s liturgical treasures.” 

The Prefect of Divine Worship also quotes Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, "who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist in the mouth and kneeling".  

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma."

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matt 23:24

Gene said...

Ah, protestantism rears its head...could it be...is it...Kavanaugh!!

Rood Screen said...

Surely Anonymous does not wish to suggest that our Eucharistic Lord is of the quality of a gnat.

Anonymous said...

Even before Vatican II (1962 - 1965) some theologians, mostly Dutch or Flemish, had taken to talking about "transfinalization" or "transignification" - meaning that the bread and wine changed their PURPOSE or their MEANING. These terms, of course, fell short of the "transubstantiation" defined by Trent.

Since Vatican II, how many priests around the world, including especially those priests teaching in seminaries in north America and western Europe, would have views on Eucharistic theology more in line with such theologians as Edward Schillebeeckx (views which Paul VI went to the trouble to denounce in Mysterium Fidei in 1965) than in line with traditional, orthodox theology ?

Very many, I believe.

Victor said...

Trent did not define transubstantiation, but said that this scholastic term expressed well the mystery of the Real Presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine. The issue is the Real Presence in that form, no matter how you describe it. Luther, for instance, spoke of consubstantiation because transubstantiation no longer made any philosophical sense in Nominalist Germany at the time. But he believed in the Real Presence insofar as it comes along with consuming the bread and wine, not as the bread and wine itself. I wonder how many Novus Ordo Catholics believe in the Real Presence at all these days, and why Cardinal Sarah is opposed so much.

Henry said...

Anonymous: "Very many, I believe."

Undoubtedly. Since an absence of orthodox belief in the Real Presence is rampart among "priests around the world, including especially those priests teaching in seminaries in north America and western Europe".

The preference for some other term, any other term, in preference to "transubstantiation", is a sure sign of disbelief that any substantial change in reality is effected precisely by and at the words of consecration so as to justify immediate adoration of the newly confected Real Presence of Our Lord in the elevated host and chalice.

Of course, it is this "real belief" that is at issue today, since no one nowadays is quibbling about scholastic modes of substance. Any protest against transubstantiation on the ground that scholastic philosophy is outmoded now, is simply a smokescreen for loss of belief in the Real Presence in any meaningful sense.

ByzRC said...

Perhaps however, most just ignore these calls anyhow. Give speeches, write books nothing changes. Thank goodness Anonymous has reassured us that it's ok to keep flinging our Lord all over our churches tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

I think soon to be Saint Paul VI said it best in his Credo of the People of God in 1968


"This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,(36) as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.(37)
... this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us."

If Ruff and friends want to say that the pope who presided over most of the council and the liturgical reform did not understand the theology behind it, then they ironically make the best argument for dismissing that reform since they imply that he did not understand what he was approving.

Joseph Johnson said...

Apparently the Church "strained out a gnat" for centuries . . .In my first Communion classes in 1968 (immediate pre-Novus Ordo--we were still only receiving on the tongue and with the server using the hand paten) "crumb theology" was firmly impressed on us. My parents also instructed us in this thinking even before that.

I'm sorry, because I was formed early on in this way as to how the Eucharist is to be handled and received, I have not been able to personally accept any of the later innovations such as Communion in the hand (something Cardinal Bernardin rammed through the USCCB in the mid to late 1970's) and serving as a lay EMHC. In discovering what is now called the EF Mass in the early 1990's (and learning to serve it) it made an even more profound impression on me that the priest must have his hands rinsed over the chalice and drink that ablution after distributing Communion.

Rightfully, Communion should be received on the tongue (preferably while kneeling) and it should be a very rare situation of absolute necessity that any lay person should ever touch the Sacred Host with his or her hands (that is the normal role of the priest or the deacon who assists him).

Anonymous said...

Rood - Surely, you are right!

TJM said...

Gene,

You could smell the scent of Eau de Kavanaugh too?

Gene said...

Catholic Eucharistic theology is rapidly becoming a dog's breakfast, and Catholic pastoral theology and practice are becoming a
situation ethics carnival. Grab a Priest, put him in a suit and tie, and stand him in a Methodist pulpit to preach. The congregation won't be able to tell the difference from their regular pastor.

TJM said...

Gene,

Do you think Kavanaugh would look good in a suit and tie? Other than that, he would make a great Methodist Minister!

Anonymous said...

Victor :
"Trent did not define transubstantiation".

Trent did state that transubstantiation "aptly expresses" the mystery.

A 2011 survey showed significant numbers of Catholics either do not know official and traditional Church teaching on the Eucharist or have beliefs on the Eucharist that are basically Protestant in nature. A VERY big change from how almost all Catholics believed c. 1960.

Gene said...

TJM, Yes, Eau de Kavanaugh...kind of a blend of weasel and skunk...maybe a hint of Chanel...

Adam Michael said...

Concern for particles has always been a concern of traditional Christian liturgies. For example, rubrics of Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies mirror those of the traditional Roman Liturgy in that the priest carefully wipes the paten during the transferral of a particle(s) of the Host into the chalice, protects his fingers from particles (cleansing them with a sponge) after touching the Host, and includes an ablution of the fingers of the deacon who cleans the chalice at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy (an ablution, which is also consumed).

I once heard an Orthodox Metropolitan explain why the Communion of the Clergy takes so long - he told the congregation that the clergy was ensuring that no particles from the Holy Gifts at the altar were lost.

Those who dismiss concern for particles are distant from the thought of ancient Christianity and have an inadequate understanding of human psychology and sociology in that they believe humanity can adhere to teachings of faith without adjacent rituals that reinforce such beliefs.

Anonymous said...

How often among Catholic priests and Catholic lay people with theology degrees around the world would an unorthodox and or sort of watered down view of the Real Presence go hand in hand with unorthodox and or weakened beliefs or views on the Virgin Birth and Resurrection ??

A new Protestant church has started in our neighborhood. Many attending are newly lapsed Catholics. I have read their "Who we are- What we believe- What we do and why we do it." booklet.

For example:

Jesus Christ:
We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; we believe in his virgin birth, in his sinless life, in his miracles, in his victorious and atoning death, in his bodily resurrection, in his ascension to the right hand of the Father, his constant intercession and in his imminent return.

This church believes in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection as real historical events. They believe and teach this and other core Christian truths clearly and unambiguously; they are attracting many new members, many fleeing the local Catholic and Anglican churches which can often lack a strong and clear emphasis on the central truths of Christianity and get distracted by an agenda which differs little from the main policies of a Green/Left political party.

How many millions of Catholics in the last 50 years have been led and taught by Catholic priests and teachers who do not have a clear, strong and literal belief, not only in the Real Presence, but also in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and so on?? Whose teaching is based on their belief that it is very unlikely Jesus ever really and actually said about a third of what the Gospels record Him as saying; and with another third of what Jesus is recorded as saying in the Gospels.....well, that is a maybe or a possibility; actually only what Jesus said that is consistent with what any 1st century rabbi would say is all we can be fairly certain Jesus actually said (or strongly influenced by that sort of thinking).

Is it any wonder, be it in Canada, NZ, Australia or south American nations etc that any independent church starting up that has pastors and leaders who REALLY BELIEVE the core truths of Christianity can easily attract new members ? And many of those new members being lapsed Catholics or lapsed C of E Anglicans etc.

The Egyptian said...

Watched a girl server pick up the corporal at the end of mass by two corners and give it a good snap like a towel or rug and then proceeded to fold it, father was looking right at her, never a word said (yes i can corroborate that) I told her mother and she damn near shrieked and explained to her daughter what was wrong. Took daughter totally by surprise, "no one told us that at training". And we wonder why the church is in trouble

Anonymous said...

Seeing as though (according to repeated surveys over past 20 years) at least 30% of Catholics attending mass have basically a protestant understanding of the Eucharist and the Real Presence I took the trouble to reread a chapter of professor G R Elton's book on the Reformation, for example:

"....Luther and Zwingli both regarded transubstantiation as an unscriptural piece of priestly magic, but their own views on the Eucharist differed widely. Luther, laying the stress on Christ's words, "This is my body", felt compelled to believe in a real presence, though this could not, of course, be produced by any human action. He held that for the believer the sacrament contains the substance of Christ's body and blood co-terminous with the substance of bread and wine, the former being imparted to the latter by the action of saving grace responding to faith, a doctrine which he rested on a difficult notion of the ubiquity of Christ's body throughout creation........the difficulties of the doctrine and his more spiritual inclinations led Zwingli to deny a physical presence altogether; he saw nothing but symbols in the bread and wine.......to Luther's scriptural citation he riposted by treating "is" as "signifies" (there was scholastic authority for such interpretations) and laid the emphasis on another passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing."

What was the process from c.1970 onwards that saw approx. 30 to 40% of north American Catholics come to believe, as the followers of Zwingli did, that the bread and wine remain mere symbols ?

Lost in the Liturgical Wasteland said...

Good luck getting any change in the Diocese of Savannah. All the children in its Catholic schools are taught in lockstep to put their paws out for the Host. Why? I can only speculate:

Some DRE's aren't going to let some man tell them what to do?

Some Diocesan officials aren't going to let some Vatican Cardinal tell them what to do?

Some haters of tradition aren't going to let anyone tell them that the old way was correct?

Whatever the reason, the underlying attitude is obvious: PRIDE. The Devil hates humility and the powers that be aren't going to teach anyone to be humble enough to RECEIVE Communion. Instead, they have taught us to boast that "We are the people of God" and we are entitled to grab those sacraments.

Oh yeah, what is it that pride comes right before...?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

We RECIEVE communion in our hands. In my 33 years as a priest in the Diocese of Savannah, not once as anyone come forwwrd with "paws" nor has anyone "grabbed" the host.

Your attack on DREs is both unwarranted and uncharitable.

TJM said...

Communion in the hand has NO legitimacy since it was born out of rank disobedience and rank cowardice by the Vatican in "legitimizing" a practice which has only served to diminish Catholic belief in the Real Presence aka Transubstantiation. A humble Italian priest in my parish in the late 1960s responded in the correct manner when a "progressive" stuck her paw out to receive the Eucharist. He slapped her hand and she received on the tongue. Too bad, Paul VI didn't have the guts of a simple parish priest.

Lost in the Liturgical Wasteland said...

"Your attack on DREs is both unwarranted and uncharitable."

Father K, all I did was speculate. My hyperbole was aimed at the overall body language of people who insist on receiving in the hand, a body language that conveys pride in a world (and increasingly a Church) bereft of humility. TJM said it all and those who favor this almost sacrilegious method of receiving the sacred Host never have any answer.

Paul VI said he would grant the indult to countries that could demonstrate that receiving this way was a tradition. You know as well as I do that there was NO such tradition in the United States before Cardinal Bernardin instigated this disgrace.

With all due respect, your reaction seems to prove something I have long observed: People don't get mad when you lie about them. They get mad when you tell the truth.

Henry said...

TMJ: "Communion in the hand has NO legitimacy since it was born out of rank disobedience and rank cowardice by the Vatican in "legitimizing" a practice which has only served to diminish Catholic belief in the Real Presence aka Transubstantiation."

Communion in the hand was introduced by the 16th century Protestant reformers--along with communion in both kinds and a number of other now familiar Novus Ordish practices--with the explicitly stated purpose and objective of eliminating (not merely diminishing) adoration of the Real Presence. It was required in Ab. Cranmer's 1952 Prayer Book.

The only difference is that this same real purpose and objective was unstated (and other ostensible reasons claimed) when communion in the hand was presented at a meeting of the U.S. bishops. (The motion failed to gain the necessary approval in the vote of the bishops present, but it was ruled that those bishops absent would be polled individually, and it subsequently was reported to the Vatican that the U.S. bishops had approved the proposal.)

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Yes I said, "Some DRE's aren't going to let some man tell them what to do?"

You said you were "speculating," then you said I got mad because you told the truth.

Is it speculation, or are you telling me what you know to be factual?

Yes, I get mad when someone from a distance makes a claim about the people they do not know and never will know. Yes, I get mad when people are uncharitably attacked with no reason. In many cases throughout our diocese, and many others I am sure, men and women volunteer their time and talent for the religious education of children. Yes, I get mad.

TJM said...

Kavanaugh, you only get mad when the hypocrisy of liberals is pointed out.

Lost in the Liturgical wasteland said...

Father, if I said that some priests had committed indiscretions that cost the Church a lot of money, would THAT be uncharitable?
Not ALL priests, but some. You know as well as I that such is true.

If I said that some politicians were more interested in a comfortable career than in helping their constituents, would THAT be uncharitable? Not ALL politicians, but some. Again, you know full well that such is true.

So what is the difference in speculating (not even declaring) that some DRE's aren't going to let some man tell them what to do? Why does THAT push your buttons? Just about everyone reading this blog knows how militant feminism has harmed families, destroyed marriages, distorted the true image of womanhood and, AND, infiltrated the Church. Most DRE's (NOT ALL--SO DON'T GO THERE) are women. And, again, most of us have had some experience at the parish level with some self-enamored woman who despises the idea of an all-male priesthood or the idea that touching the Sacred Species is the privilege of the ordained.

No one was attacked with no reason. There's a very good reason for this attack: IT HAPPENS. There are women in powerful parish positions who resent men and men having authority and they abuse their position because they have an agenda.

And why do you bring up volunteers for religious education and start taking up offenses on their behalf?

No one is besmirching the good men and women who volunteer their time to educate children.

If you are mad, well, maybe you are just starting to get a taste of how many of us feel who have had to stand by and take it while our Church surrenders, bit by bit, to the spirit of the world while our priests and bishops marginalize us. Perhaps it might help you have compassion (not condescension) for people you don't agree with.