Why the Traditional Latin Mass and not the Novus Ordo Mass

You are reading it the use of therefore wrong. Here’s a link that might be helpful:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729

 

Holy Communion in the Hand?
by Paul Kokoski
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8616&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=2026075

Description
In this essay Paul Kokoski discusses claims brought forth by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, (2005-2009), that the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand — rather than kneeling and on the tongue — has led to indifference, disbelief, and sacrilegious behavior toward our Lord in the Eucharist.


Father Regis Scanlon, who is spiritual director for Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, has said that "the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is one of those wonderful truths by which Christianity shines forth as a religion of mysteries far exceeding the capacity of the human mind. The Catholic Church has defined the dogma of the real presence by stating that Jesus Christ is present whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine following the words of consecration at the Eucharist."1

The reception of Holy Communion at Mass has always been a moment of tremendous reverence and awe, traditionally preceded by the ringing of the bells, burning of incense and observation of silence.

Sadly there are many Catholics who no longer believe in the real presence. No doubt this has been due to the toning down, and in some cases the deletion, of these and many other symbols and signs of adoration. One such sign of adoration that has been drastically toned down is the practice of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.

This has led Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, to recently suggest the policy of giving Communion in the hand be revised or "abandoned altogether."2 It is Archbishop Ranjith's belief that the introduction of this practice after Vatican II has resulted in indifference, outrages and sacrileges toward our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, causing great harm to both the Catholic Church and to individual souls.

In the preface to a new book by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, Dominus Est: Meditations of a Bishop from Central Asia on the Sacred Eucharist, Archbishop Ranjith notes that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity. Instead, he argues, the established practice of piety — receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue — was changed "improperly and hurriedly," and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.3 In this essay I will briefly discuss Archbishop Ranjith's claims from the perspective and situation of the Catholic Church in Canada — which I suspect is essentially the same or very similar to the situation in the U.S. and in other countries where Communion in the hand was adopted.

The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."4 After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.

Despite this statement of the Holy See, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) decided at its Plenary Assembly of November 1969 to submit a formal request to the Holy Father for permission to distribute Holy Communion in the hand. The CCCB informed its members that "the growing participation in the Eucharist, especially by sacramental communion, has created within man the desire to see re-established the venerable custom of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hands."5 The CCCB further advised its members that "the Pope thought it better not to change the [old] discipline for all the Church, but, rather, to study on an individual basis the requests submitted to him by national conferences of bishops."6 What Pope Paul VI actually said in Memoriale Domini, however, was "if the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place [it had not, at that point, in Canada] . . . the Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care."7

Permission for Communion in the hand was eventually granted to the Canadian bishops on several strict conditions, including that "the new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice."8 The Canadian bishops nonetheless advised its instructors of the new practice to provide the faithful with only the "good reasons which justify the introduction of the new rite."9 While not explicitly forbidden Communion on the tongue, the faithful — especially first communicants and converts — were "encouraged to receive the Eucharistic Bread on the flat palm of the hand."10

This movement toward adopting a new, single policy was reinforced by the removal of the Communion rail, which is compatible with receiving Communion on the tongue. For those not familiar with the Communion or altar rail, it is an architectural feature, usually made of marble or some other precious material, that separates the sanctuary from the body of the church. A clean white cloth of fine linen, which was usually fastened on the sanctuary side of the rail, would be extended over the length of the rail before those who receive Holy Communion to act as a sort of corporal to receive any particles that may by chance fall from the hands of the priest. The communicant would kneel, take the cloth in both hands and hold it under his chin.

Once the faithful were effectively forced to stand for Holy Communion11" and the practice of receiving in the hand became the norm, lay people were then invited to come up to the altar and distribute Holy Communion. Eventually and unfortunately this practice also became normalised.

(cont'd)

+

 

One of the major arguments given for supporting the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand was that it "emphasizes an active personal involvement, one of the goals of liturgical renewal."12 If, however, this was one of our bishops' primary motivations behind their quest for legitimate renewal, one has to wonder why the most solemn act of kneeling at the moment of Holy Communion was considered expendable when for centuries it was employed because of its immeasurable benefit of predisposing one to holiness.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, has noted that kneeling is "an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God."13 He reminds us that "the word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own liturgy."14

In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Pope speaks of a "story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frightening thin limbs, but, most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical."15

Ironically, while the practice of kneeling is widely accepted in secular circles such as those instances when one is in the presence of state royalty or some other important dignitary, our Catholic bishops make no such stipulation when one is in the presence of God himself in the Blessed Sacrament.

Though modern liturgical theorists, designers and consultants tout the newer practice, which opposes the Communion rail and its conduciveness to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, there has been no ecclesiastical document that has come out against the Communion rail or one that sanctions its removal from churches.

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand, that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes:

The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence toward this sacrament nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity — for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.16

Any emergency justifies that the privilege be extended to a lay person because emergencies do not imply a lack of respect for the holy body of Christ. This aside, there is no reason for receiving Communion in the hand; only an immanent spirit of paltry familiarity with our Lord.

In his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae, Pope John Paul II also states: "How eloquent, therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary. To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist."17

During the reception of Holy Communion it is Jesus who transforms us into himself, and not we who transform him into our substance. The superior being is the one to assimilate the inferior. Is not Communion on the tongue (where one receives directly from the priest in persona Christi) more expressive of this theology and hence more reverent than Communion in the hand (where one takes and gives to oneself)? One of our esteemed high-ranking clergy rejected this latter argument that Communion in the hand is equivalent to "self-communicating." He commented: "If I offer you something to eat, and you accept it in your hand, as is normal, then it is I who am giving and you who receive. Only if you were to help yourself to something in the kitchen, would you be 'taking and giving to yourself.'"18 This may sound coherent but the various bishops and bishops' conferences obviously believed otherwise when they made an appeal for the new practice on the grounds that it represented an "active personal involvement" of the laity. Implicit in this argument is the admission of there being an additional "active" step taken by the communicant during the transfer of the Sacred Host from the priest to the recipient — a step supporting the idea that Communion in the hand is a form of self-communicating. If this were not the case then there would have been no need to introduce it in the first place. In any event it would seem the introduction of this practice was unwarranted.

The "kitchen" example does, however, raise a new concern. That is exactly what happens when — during the Mass and after the consecration — a member of the laity opens the tabernacle, takes the Sacred Host and distributes it to the faithful. This practice, which is becoming more and more common, would not have been possible had it not been for the prior legitimization of the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. This demonstrates how easily the practice of Communion in the hand can and in fact does open the door to all sorts of accidental and even intentional abuses.

Our bishops have argued that Communion in the hand is the proper way for the faithful to respond to our Lord's invitation: "All of you, take and eat this." What the bishops overlook is the fact that while our Lord did speak these words he issued them within the context of instituting the sacrament of holy orders. These words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately.

(cont'd)

+

 

Arguments for Communion in the hand based upon the fact that this practice can be found among the early Christians are also not valid. Pope Pius XII spoke in very clear and unmistakable terms against the idea of re-introducing customs from the time of the catacombs. This is because customs of a previous era can assume completely new functions today. For example, many Protestants right up to the present time receive Communion in the hand as an implicit denial of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It is in this environment, culture and context, and not that of the early Church, that our Catholic bishops have adopted the practice. One calls to mind the longstanding principle of Catholic worship, "lex orandi, lex credendi" — let the law of prayer be governed by the law of belief. Catholics should worship in accordance with what they believe.

The practice of Communion in the hand has been detrimental to Christian unity ever since it was employed, causing divisions within the Church and confusion among those separated brethren who share with us an explicit and orthodox belief in the Holy Eucharist.

Despite the widespread practice of Communion in the hand, the universal discipline of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has not changed. A bishop, for example, may forbid the practice of Communion in the hand but not the practice of Communion on the tongue. The Church strongly encourages the latter but not the former. With respect to the former, the Church speaks only in a cautionary tone because of the many abuses that often accompany this practice. These include the increased likelihood of dropping or stealing the Sacred Host. This unfortunately has happened in these days of revived Satanism. Consecrated hosts have been known to be sold for blasphemous uses.

Dietrich von Hildebrand asked why ultimately the Church should continue to allow Communion in the hand when "it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it."19

Mother Teresa reportedly said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."20 Father John Hardon, S.J. also proclaimed, "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."21 Even the great Pope John Paul II reportedly said: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it."22

The abusive and hurried manner in which the practice of Communion in the hand was imposed after Vatican II lead to a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist and caused great pain for many in the Church. It disoriented many people, who with real justification — especially in light of the recent and overwhelming loss of faith in the Eucharist as the real presence — feared that the very heart of Catholic belief had been compromised. Further, as Communion on the tongue helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety, I believe it is high time this practice be returned to its former place of prominence — not only for the greater glory of God but for the salvation of souls.


(emphases in bold and red are mine - SgC)
+

 

2 Timothy 4
1I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom:
2Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.
3For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears:
4And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

+

 

As Peter Kwasniewski wrote recently,

"In general, once one becomes aware of the problems surrounding Communion in the hand — that it risks profanation, that it leads to a loss of faith in the Real Presence and the special nature of the ordained priesthood, that it is contrary to a fitting tradition of many centuries, that it is contrary even to Paul VI’s stipulations, that it facilitates the theft of the Host for satanic rituals, etc.—then it would be contrary to a well informed conscience to receive in that way, and so, it would be sinful."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/when-receiving-communion-in-the-hand-can-be-sinful

+

 

Hi, Sg. I have a question for you. How do you personally reconcile going to daily Mass at the NO if you think you are committing sacrilege by possibly stepping on a fragment of Holy Communion? It would be helpful to know.

 

Bump

 

Before I answer, I have a question for you.

Are you sincerely seeking a solution to the grave problem of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, or are you seeking to discredit me?

+

 

Waiting to hear how you handle going to NO Masses. It would be helpful to know.
I have never sought to discredit you.

 

A few days after my baptism 11 years ago, I went to a weekday morning (NO) mass.
I was truly puzzled when I saw that few people went to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on a daily basis.
I couldn't figure out why every mature Catholic would not want to receive Our Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist daily.

The more Masses I assisted at, the more my own love for the Mass deepened.
After a while, I was asked to be Lector for weekday Masses and later on EMHC for Sunday Mass.
Although I told my priest that I wished to decline because I felt unworthy to be EMHC and give Holy Communion to others, my Parish Priest managed to persuade me to 'help out' because it takes too long for the 2 priests to distribute Holy Communion to the large congregation (~1000 people) at each of the many Sunday Masses.

As EMHC, on not a few occasions, I saw laity coming up to receive Holy Communion without knowing what to do or how to respond. They were obviously not Catholics. I would refuse them Holy Communion and tell them to see the priest after Mass. Most of them never went to see the priest.
However, I was also aware that some other EMHCs were not particular about the laity needing to respond appropriately when "The Body of Christ" is said; and gave them Holy Communion anyway.
The sacristan had on several occasions found consecrated Hosts in the pews, the hymnals, on the floor and in the toilet

Gradually, over the years, the more I read about the Holy Eucharist and the Traditions of Holy Mother Church, the more I realised that we were not giving enough reverence to Our Lord by receiving Him in our hands while standing.
As EMHC, I saw the Holy Eucharist drop to the floor several times and people would actually refuse to pick It up or show any remorse.
I began to understand the risk of desecration of the Holy Eucharist when people receive Our Lord in their hands.

That led me to cease being an EHMC and I began receiving Holy Communion on my tongue, while standing at first, then later I would kneel to receive.
Discussions on MOG forum led me to start veiling at Mass.

I became keen to attend the TLM, and one day I did just that.
There is only 1 diocesan TLM on Sundays in the whole of Singapore.

It was difficult to go regularly because I was still going together with the rest of my family to the NO mass, and because the TLM was held at 6pm on Sundays in the city centre, always ending past my family's usual dinner time.

Then I learnt that the same diocesan priest celebrated some weeknight TLMs in a tiny chapel not too far from my home.
I tried my best to attend.

After assisting at a few TLMs I knew that I want to attend only the TLM and not the NO if I could help it.
Of course, by this time, I had already learnt of the devious destruction of the liturgy engineered by Annibale Bugnini during and after Vatican II council.

I spoke with and/or wrote to my parish priest, the Archbishop of Singapore, and a few other priests whom I felt would be supportive or were in a position to make changes, about making the TLM more accessible and more frequently and regularly available.
Everything came to naught.
I was taken aback by how many were either disinterested, afraid to go against their superiors or were openly opposed to the TLM.
Some snarky remarks were made, e.g.; "Oh, you mean the Mass where the priest turns his back on the people"

Anyway, I continued to assist at as many TLMs as I could, and on days when there was no TLM, I would still go to the NO mass.

All that changed dramatically when the Coronavirus (scamdemic) hit Singapore.
I was horrified when the Bishop banned Holy Communion on the tongue. I refused to receive in my hand, so I resorted to making a Spiritual Communion at every Mass.
Then, horror of horrors, the Bishop stopped Masses altogether in mid-February, way before the Singapore government mandated a stop to all religious gatherings.

On the very day that all Masses in the Archdiocese were stopped, I went to the SSPX chapel for the very first time.
Before that, I had not had the courage to go.

Then the Singapore government stopped all religious gatherings in early April, just before Holy Week.
The SSPX had to comply.
The sad days of having only online Masses followed.

In phase 2 of the reopening after the "Circuit breaker" measures were imposed, the government initially disallowed religious gatherings even though gyms, swimming pools, restaurants etc were allowed to open with limitations on the maximum number of people allowed.
I wrote an appeal to the government, as I'm sure many other people did as well, and to its credit, the government responded positively.

The SSPX immediately opened up its chapel according to the imposed limitations and I could once again assist at Mass, whereas the diocesan churches only opened up for Mass this weekend.

I have now no qualms about remaining with the SSPX, more so since Bp Schneider has spoken in support of Abp Lefevbre and the SSPX.
Now I can assist at the TLM every single day.
Deo gratias!

+

 

Online conference will spur laity to stand up for right to receive Communion on tongue
No registration is necessary. Please tune in Thursday, 16 July 2020 beginning at 12:00pm EST!
By Voice of the Family

July 10, 2020 (Voice of the Family) — An online conference “Love and reverence due to Our Lord: Let’s always receive Holy Communion on the tongue” will be held on Thursday, 16 July 2020 from 12:00pm EST until 2:30pm.

This event is being held online for free and can be viewed on LifeSite’s YouTube channel and on the LifeSiteNews Catholic Facebook page. To bookmark the LifeSite YouTube channel, click here.

The event will feature the following guests:

• Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, Diocese of Portsmouth, UK
• Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Author
• Alexander Tschugguel, St. Boniface Institute
• Theresa Habsburg
• John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews
• John Smeaton, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

No registration is necessary. Please tune in Thursday, 16 July 2020 beginning at 12:00pm EST!

All presentations will be readily available to watch immediately afterwards if you cannot attend.

***

About the theme of this conference
Voice of the Family in union with the pro-life movement worldwide advocates for the inviolability and value of human life and proudly so. Indeed, we consider it a privilege and honour to defend the most vulnerable human lives. Many in the pro-life movement are prepared to lay down their own lives for the lives of those they seek to protect. This is the strength of our commitment.

And yet there is something even more precious than the sanctity of human life, and this is the divine life truly present in the Holy Eucharist in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Our greatest treasure on earth is the Blessed Sacrament. There is no other nation so great, the Divine Office of Corpus Christi sings, “as to have its gods so near as our God is present to us”. The Eucharist is our dearest treasure and the thought of having it so near to us in our Catholic churches fills us with gratitude and awe.

We rejoice as churches around the world re-open. Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist can be received again. But whilst the life of a Catholic might be characterised as discerning how we can best offer the love and reverence due to Our Lord, Catholics in many places in the world are now faced with a new and terrible challenge of how are we allowed to worship Our Lord. New regulations, issued by some of the world’s bishops, recommend that the faithful receive Holy Communion in the hand and, in the most radical cases, including in Britain, bishops attempt to ban Holy Communion on the tongue. These recommendations contradict divine and Church law, they obscure the reality of the Real Presence, and they lead the faithful, albeit, please God, in most cases unintentionally, to engage in practices lacking in reverence towards the divine life.

What are we, the laity, to do in such a situation? How can we defend the Eucharist and offer Our Lord the love and reverence due to Him?

First, we must know that by insisting on receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, we are standing on solid ground, prepared by the Tradition of the Church and made fertile with the blood of her martyrs. Tradition demands the greatest possible reverence towards the Holy Eucharist. In fact, serious punishments used to be reserved for practices which are being recommended by some bishops today. The faithful are being misled into believing that the responsible option is to receive Our Lord in the hand despite the very real danger of losing and desecrating fragments of our Eucharistic Lord. And following the instructions issued in the current crisis, Catholics are being schooled to remember in future that this is the so-called “safer option” when similar problems arrive.

But generations of Catholics before us have kept their devotion to our Eucharistic Lord unchanged throughout wars, epidemics, and other disasters that have struck the world — not because they did not know the danger they were in, but because they knew Who is in the Eucharist they approached.

St. Thomas taught: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (16 ST, III, Q. 82, Art. 13)

The Real Presence does not change. It is not possible that what the Church has always taught about the Holy Eucharist does not apply following the coronavirus.

Secondly, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue remained the norm even after the practice of Communion in the hand was introduced in 1969 under certain conditions despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the bishops at the time. Thus, it is a practice that the Church in modern times, tragically, tolerates.

However, the universal law of the Church states that the faithful have the right to receive Communion on the tongue and that this right cannot be denied to them. This is the universal norm that no bishop or a bishops’ conference can overrule. As lay faithful, we must insist upon our right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. But above all, we must insist that Our Lord has the right to be received in the most reverent manner possible. This is not a matter of our personal piety but justice due to Him.

The ultimate target of Satan’s attacks is the Holy Eucharist, in which Jesus Christ is really present. The devil will do everything in his power to obscure the sacred reality of the Eucharist in order to diminish reverence due to Him. Today his scheme aims to lead large groups of faithful to desecration of the Eucharistic Body of Christ on an unprecedented scale. He wants the Body of Christ to be trampled on by the feet of clergy and laity in Catholic churches around the world. For a vast number of Catholics in the past fifty years, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has weakened faith in the Real Presence, in transubstantiation and in the divine character of the Sacrament. The devil would use anything to advance his wicked plots, even our longing to be united with Our Lord again in the Holy Eucharist after being deprived of assisting at Holy Mass for months.

We must join in making acts of reparation for sins committed against the Holy Eucharist in our churches. The Eucharistic fragments falling down and crushed by the feet of God’s own people has to be for us a tragedy that demands action.

(Read the rest at https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...d-up-for-right-to-receive-communion-on-tongue)

+

 

Dear SgC thank you for your posts on this forum. Re the priest "turning his back on the people" I reply, on the contrary the priest is leading the congregation in facing Christ on the altar

 

We must join in making acts of reparation for sins committed against the Holy Eucharist in our churches.

From the Lifesite article above.

 

I second what Aidan said. Thank you for bringing this issue to the forum. I’m sure it will bring much good to those who read it.

 

Who are you trying to kid?!?

You seek to belittle and discredit Sg and other traditional Catholics on this forum every chance you get.

Frankly I’m sick and tired of it, and you’re one of the main reasons I rarely post here any more.

 

Sorry you feel that way Brian. The key word is seek. I do not seek to belittle anyone. I am allowed to post my thoughts and feelings the same as anyone else. You apparently do not agree with my posts. I am sorry you are sick and tired of it. But I can’t take all of the credit for why you rarely post here. That’s your responsibility.
Basically, you just don’t agree with me. We shall have to agree to disagree. I mean no disrespect at all.

 

Thank you for sharing your story, Sg. It demonstrates that conversion is often a process. Your love for Jesus and desire to serve the Church is obvious, and though I have a reservation or two against the Society, I pray that Catholics never tire of pursuing the riches of our Faith ever more deeply. Could you link us to the support Bishop Schneider has given to the SSPX, or is it already on another thread?

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-sspx-personal-prelature-would-redress-unjust-suppression/

Bishop Schneider: SSPX Personal Prelature Would Redress “Unjust” Suppression
Maike Hickson December 12, 2016 119 Comments

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has given another interview of importance, this time to a French traditional Catholic journal, Présent. In this new interview, Bishop Schneider makes some politely discerning remarks about the currently considered, formal re-integration of the Society of St. Pius X, and then says that the recognition of the SSPX is an act of “rendering justice – belatedly – for the injustice done to the Society [of St. Pius X] in 1975 on the part of the Holy See.”

In the following, I present a translation from these especially important parts of that French interview – as it has been posted by the website Le Forum Catholique – along with the questions posed to Schneider, which are now placed in italics:

The Sovereign Pontiff has now extended the possibility [for the faithful] to confess [in sacramental penance] with priests of the Society of St. Pius X beyond the limits of the Year of Mercy. Does this seem to you to be an important decision?

Yes, of course, and I am very happy about it! This is a very pastoral gesture, very merciful, and in my eyes one of the most important gestures of the pontificate of Pope Francis which helps the process of canonical re-integration of this ecclesiastical reality which has existed for 50 years and which is producing obvious spiritual fruits. Many young families assembled around the Society of St. Pius X love the Church, pray for the pope, as their forebearers have done before them. The Church contains different houses, different spiritualities. Only those ecclesiastics who are hostile toward the Society present it with exaggerated demands. John XXIII as well as Paul VI always insisted upon the pastoral character of the [Second Vatican] Council. If the Society has difficulties in accepting certain documents of Vatican II, one has to place that into the context of the pastoral objective of the Council. The Dogma has not changed. We have the same Faith. Thus, there is no problem to integrate canonically the Society of St. Pius X.

You have been one of the Churchmen sent by the Vatican to visit the seminaries and priories of the Society. Which solution do you think is possible for resolving its controversial position?

The personal prelature is a position that is very fitting for the reality of the Society of St. Pius X and its mission. I am convinced that Monsignor Lefebvre would have accepted voluntarily and with gratitude this proposed official ecclesiastical structure, the recognition of this apostolate by the Church. This would only be an act of rendering justice – quite belatedly – to the unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 on the part of the Holy See. At that time, Monsignor Lefebvre had also presented a [canonical] recourse. The establishment now of a prelature would in some way accept this canonical recourse after a delay of some 40 years. On the other side, the Society must not demand guarantees of 100% which would be entirely unrealistic. We are still on earth, not in Heaven! It [such an inordinate demand] would be a gesture that would reveal a certain lack of confidence in Divine Providence.

h/t Rorate Caeli Twitter

 

https://edwardpentin.co.uk/bishop-schneider-on-the-sspx/

Bishop Schneider on the SSPX
24/01/2018 Edward Pentin

Bishop Athanasius Schneider shared these opinions on the SSPX in an interview he gave me on Jan. 11. The rest of the interview can be read here:

What are your views on the Society of St. Pius X? Do you have sympathy for their position?

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis on various occasions spoke with understanding towards the SSPX. It was particularly at his time, as Cardinal of Buenos Aires, that Pope Francis helped the SSPX in some administrative issues. Pope Benedict XVI once said about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “He was a great bishop of the Catholic Church.” Pope Francis considers the SSPX as Catholic, and has expressed this publicly several times. Therefore, he seeks a pastoral solution, and he made the generous pastoral provisions of granting to the priests of the SSPX the ordinary faculty to hear confessions and conditional faculties to celebrate canonically marriage. The more the doctrinal, moral and liturgical confusion grows in the life of the Church, the more one will understand the prophetic mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in an extraordinary dark time of a generalized crisis of the Church.

Maybe one day History will apply the following words of Saint Augustine to him: “Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church” (De vera religione 6, 11).