Liturgical Abuse, Spiritual Abuse

Recently the H1N1 pandemic scare has induced a number of dioceses to implement measures that forbad the laity from receiving the Host according to the ordinary form (on the tongue), mandating that for those who wished to receive, they must receive according to the extraordinary indult form (on the hand).

This seem to me a matter of liturgical abuse as this goes contrary to what the supreme legislator decreed [c.f. article 92 of Redemptionis Sacramentum is explicit :"...the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue..."]

The proposition that the ordinary form may be suppressed by the Ordinary seems an untenable position that reeks of neo-Gallicanism. So far not one diocese mandating suppression of the ordinary form of reception has produced a document from Rome that nuances article 92, granting the bishop the authority to suppress reception of Holy Communion on the tongue. To the contrary, a note circulating on the internet from the Congregation for Divine Worship states that a bishop may not ban Communion on the tongue.

It should be remembered that the Church is by Divine decree a monarchic, hierarchical institution. The bishop is indeed the supreme legislator in his diocese, but his authority is limited and contingent on the Pope - who has full, immediate and ordinary power over the Universal Church; the bishop ruling in his diocese with the same authority but only due to it being granted to him by the Pope. The bishop has ordinary jurisdiction from Christ through the Roman Pontiff. His authority is limited and contingent on what legislation has been decreed by and in the name of the Pope. To act otherwise is abuse, and displays a schismatic mentality. The Gallican thesis, that the bishop obtains his power directly from Our Lord is refuted vigorously by the Church. Indeed, Pius XII following his encyclical Mystici corporis reiterated the fact that all pastors of the Church receive from the Pope "their jurisdiction and their mission" (Osservatore Romano, Feb, 18, 1942 as referenced in Fenton's Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXX Jan-Jun, 1949).

The result of this is grave spiritual abuse of those who seek to receive Our Lord according to the traditions of the fathers, according to the will of the Holy Father. Much has been written on how the scandal of Communion in the hand was brought upon the Church in the late 60s by evil clergy - and the terrible abuse of the Blessed Sacrament that it wrought. First and foremost, a devastating attack on the Real Presence and a massive falling away from the Faith; mass apostasy. Enough on this...

However, now a whole group of laity are suffering a form of spiritual rape. Those who wish and only wish to receive on the tongue and are denied. And this in violation of not only RS, but canon Law: 912 "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion".

The suspension of this Gallican act on December 15 is of little consolation to all those who suffered over the past weeks.

Catholic Bloggers have a Right to Speak Out

Recently the Catholic Register quoted Archishop Weisberger who claims that bloggers who speak out on scandal are outside the Church (e.g. raising the issue of the scandal of funding pro-abortion groups in South America).

A grave allegation is made about bloggers who have, for example raised the above mentioned issue or blown the whistle on such militant anti-Church groups such as the "Catholic Network for Women's Equality" that promotes pantheism, priestesses etc. Vox Cantoris is to be commended for his expose of this organization.

Perhaps what is far graver than this is the decision of Archbishop Weisberger to state the following without any clarification:

"I think first of all they’re not part of the church, they’re not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate, they have no authority, they have no accountability".

Here, a straw man is constructed and then demolished by the bishop. Canon Law states that Catholics have a right to make know to their pastors their spiritual concerns.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Meanwhile, bishops should be attentive to the following:

Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.

Also, a bishop should consider the salvation of souls as his primary objective and not helping the poor. Alms and charity are a means to sanctification, but not the end. Obviously we cannot forget our less fortunate brothers, but even more so we cannot forget any spiritual misfortune that may be upon them. Hence, preaching the Gospel is primary.

In conclusion, a bishop is obliged to clarify and make restitution if indeed the Catholic laity have been funding abortion via Development and Peace. The laity also have a right to know the Canadian bishop's stand on organizations such as the "Catholic Network for Women's Equality" which operates within the canonical territory of the Canadian bishops. -Does this group use the word "Catholic" with episcopal approval per canon law? If so, why, and if not - will the bishops request they cease doing so.

May Catholic bloggers continue to raise their voices loudly and clearly!

A Glorious Opportunity

Bishop Richard Williamson can still draw good from evil by not just accepting what happened - but why it happened. Evil actions are first the result of premeditation. The Shoah was the result of decades (even centuries) of spiritual rot that accelerated with the rise of social Darwinism. Darwin himself would have been horrified, yet the fact remains that this paradigm shift allowed the opening for the rise of a eugenicist movement that culminated in Jews being deemed sub-human, worthy of extermination. 

As Pope Benedict has written, though the SS was a movement of atheists (and occultists), the sad fact remains that most of them were also baptized (be they protestant or Catholic). This certainly provides an opportunity to explore the reasons for this apostasy (the paganizing Renaissance, the Reformation, the French Revolution and the rise of a virulent atheism and anti-Christianism). 

Bishop Williamson could also develop the links between various forces of totalitarianism - Nazi, Soviet and the contemporary phenomena of the dictatorship of relativism. He could touch on the rise of "mercy killing" and compare it to the extermination of 70,000 physically and mentally handicapped Germans by the Nazi regime prior to the commencement of the War. 

He could explore the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which partitioned Poland and paved the way for the extermination of Jews. He could explore the facts behind Nazis training in Soviet Russia prior to the war; he could explore the NKVD and its leading "lights" and how they inspired the SS. For example he could reflect on the similarities between psychopaths such as Himmler of the SS and Beria of the NKVD. He could discuss Katyn and how this atrocious act set the precedent for similar Nazi exterminations in the east. In all of this he could point out how the Soviets led and the Nazis followed. He could also discuss the terrible silence of western collaboration (through denial and silence) with the Soviets. 

 

He could also explore the various other genocidal acts that took place and are so sadly forgotten and even denied: the Armenian Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Gulag (Leninist and Stalinist) Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, the Tibetan Annexation, the Palestinian Refugee Crisis, the Rwandan, Chechen and Sudanese Genocides - as well as, what can only be regarded as a new Holocaust: the Chaldean Holocaust (where, since 2003 the  vast majority of Chaldeans have been exterminated, forcibly "converted" to Mohomedanism, or - if lucky - have fled the country). On this issue, as with so many others there is a deathly silence. Finally, he could conclude with the "Silent Scream" of millions of souls lost through the unspeakable crime of abortion. 

 

He could draw his final conclusion: this is not because of religion, it is because of lack of religion. It is because mankind refuses to bend the knee to the Prince of Peace, to realize that true peace is the tranquility of order - the order of Christ. 

What a glorious opportunity with the world watching! What a defeat for the secular press which despises Christ and His Church.  What a defeat for satan. 

 

Reflections on Anti-Catholic Hatred following the Lifting of the Excommunications

God bless Pope Benedict for lifting the excommunications. God bless him also for refusing to cave in under extraordinary media pressure which sought to reverse this action. Yet this only underscores two points: 1) total ignorance of Church law, and more importantly: 2) the anti-Catholic nature of the anti-papal attacks. The Pope can no more re-excommunicate Bishop Williamson for his private opinion than he can "re-incommunicate" him if he re-examines the historical evidence. Will the media be now calling for the excommunication of Armenian and Ukrainian Holocaust deniers/negationists etc.? And let us not forget, this latter group contains legions of followers. 

With reference to Bishop Williamson, it is curious that the "freedom of speech" crowd (as no doubt they would be very proud of calling themselves) is denying the bishop his "freedom". Is one only free to express (indeed regurgitate) only what has been decreed permissible by powerful international forces - such as the "media"?

Nonetheless, God is drawing good out of evil, as 40 years of Vatican II "ecumenism" and "dialogue" has been exposed as a fraud. "Ecumenism" and "dialogue" have now been seen for what they are  conformity of the Church to the world and false religions - and not the conversion of , for example Jews to the one, true Faith. 

Alas, vitriolic Zionist hatred of the Catholic Church has been exposed. A search of the internet makes this very clear. Following closely - yet more insidiously - is the hatred of Catholic Tradition (in reality, Catholic Truth) by numerous materially heretical so-called Catholics who are raging against the lifting of the excommunications (many behind the facade of opposition to Bishop Williamson; as if his private opinions have any reflection on doctrine). 

Quite enlightening is the warped, unhinged approach of numerous nominal "Catholics" who wish Bishop Williamson be thrown out of the Church, yet cannot seem to raise themselves to call for the expulsion of priests and bishops who are teaching heresy. Surely denying the Divinity of Christ is infinitely worse than denying the Shoah? Surely rejecting Humanae Vitae is likewise infinitely worse - just look at the number of deaths by comparison! 

It is now imperative that indeed a true dialogue (St. Thomas More defined dialogue as "two friends who swear to each other to yield to the light and only the light") commence on the various questionable aspects of Vatican II. It should be re-emphasized that this Council was pastoral, that acceptance of a number of highly questionable doctrines be re-examined for the greater good of the entire Church. 

May God bless Pope Benedict. May God bless Bishop Fellay. And yes, may God bless Bishop Williamson, as well as those who hate the Catholic Church. May they, as Christ wishes be brought to the fullness of Catholic Truth.