Is Pope Francis Trying to Destroy Western Christian Civilisation? Really?

From The Denziger-Bergoglio blog:

Francis’ universal prayer intention for the month of July is:

That indigenous peoples, whose identity and very existence are threatened, will be shown due respect” (Vatican Radio, July 6, 2016).

The intention for evangelization is: That the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean, by means of her mission to the continent, may announce the Gospel with renewed vigor and enthusiasm. (Zenit, July 7, 2016)

These intentions proposed by Francis during the month of July warrant commentary.

In reflecting upon prayer, we recall the Gospels narrations of the numerous occasions when Jesus prayed, and especially, the mandate that he gave us to pray with the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer par excellence. After all, true prayer is praying as Jesus did, and in keeping with what he taught.

For, as Saint Augustine amply teaches, “if we pray rightly, and as becomes our wants, we say nothing but what is already contained in the Lord’s Prayer. And whoever says in prayer anything which cannot find its place in that gospel prayer, is praying in a way which, if it be not unlawful, is at least not spiritual; and I know not how carnal prayers can be lawful, since it becomes those who are born again by the Spirit to pray in no other way than spiritually.” And after a long list of examples, the same Doctor of the Church ends: “And if you go over all the words of holy prayers, you will, I believe, find nothing which cannot be comprised and summed up in the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. Wherefore, in praying, we are free to use different words to any extent, but we must ask the same things; in this we have no choice” (Saint Augustine, Epistle 130, no.12/22).

Of course, these seven primordial petitions in the Lord’s Prayer may be spread out into many others…however, that “indigenous people be shown due respect” is a prayer intention which seems to stray completely off-track, above all coming from the Chair of Peter. And it is dangerously mistaken in what it insinuates…

The indigenous girl with the defiant attitude at the microphone is, in reality, a mediocre actress wearing television studio make-up. And some of the images of the so-called native peoples portray shocking barbarism or sensuality. Francis calls for respect for their ways of life and threatened traditions, presenting these aberrant figures of doubtful authenticity as models.

slide0040_image086Respect what traditions? Cannibalism, polygamy, incest, idolatry and Satanism? He does not come right out and say it, but subliminally insinuates. It appears that Bergoglio professes belief in an immaculate conception of these poor individuals, among whom the light of the Gospel has not yet shone in its full splendor.

While Francis goes about destroying century-old catholic traditions in protocols, liturgies and customs that developed within the light of the Gospel, he wishes to indiscriminately save all pagan traditions – traditions which gradually would die off by their own inglorious dynamism.

Why should a specific culture or tradition be saved? We know that the Church is immortal; but weFore-tribe-mandon’t confess the belief that the indigenous peoples are or should also be. In Noah’s time, the survival of those peoples’ way of life of was not in God’s intentions, nor those of his prophet…

These life-savers that the Bishop of Rome continually throws to these poor people, besides being anti-Christian, are also contradictory, since his policy of welcoming refugees into Europe — at any price and without discernment — leads to a renunciation of the western Christian identity of countries clearly at risk of succumbing to the avalanche of fanatical Muslim barbarity. This factor doesn’t seem to bother Francis, but rather appears to spur him on, as the Denzinger-Bergogolio has already pointed out in one of its studies (Note of Dz-B_EN: see here)

In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis encourages Europeans to not be afraid of losing their own culture:

Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a Church without frontiers, a Church which considers herself mother to all. For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis.(Apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, no. 210, November 24, 2013)

Why does Francis want “new forms of cultural synthesis” only for the Christian European peoples? Are the indigenous peoples perhaps a superior race that may not undergo any kind of “cultural synthesis”? Or it is perhaps because such “cultural synthesis” allows Francis to do away with the remains of Western Christian civilization? Read entire article from The Denzinger-Bergoglio here

Comments invited…   

UN Establishes Post of LGBT Enforcer

International institutions exist to impose their radical vision on the whole world.
Just a few days ago in Geneva disaster struck. Click here 

C-Fam Centre For family and human rights logo

Radical delegations from Europe have established the position of UN-LGBT Enforcer.

This UN-LGBT Enforcer will travel the world imposing the sexual revolution on peoples and churches and countries who do not want it.

It will be under the guise of protecting LGBT people from discrimination. But that is a lie.

The purpose will be aimed at anyone who believes in traditional sexual morality and to stamp out that belief.

The New United Nations LGBT Enforcer will determine, without a doubt, that your religious beliefs are nothing more than hate.

The new UN-LGBT Enforcer will come with the might and muscle of the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States and with the power to enforce this radical new belief.

C-Fam and other pro-family NGOs worked tirelessly to block this new position. Alas, under threat of losing international aid and other unethical threats, the new position was instituted by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

C-Fam and our allies around the world will be on the watch for the inevitable abuses that will come from this individual and the powerful forces behind him.

We cannot do this alone; we cannot do this without your prayers; we cannot do this without your financial support.

We are up against the most powerful people and institutions on the earth. They have unlimited funds and the power of governments behind them.

We pledge never to give up in defending religious people against the new sexual ideology. But we cannot do it without your help.

Austin Ruse
President – C-Fam

Comment:

Will the hierarchy please end their deafening – if not cowardly – silence on the relentless spread of LGBT influence?  

With a Pope who is falling over himself to appease and apologise to them all over the place, it can’t be easy, I agree, but it is the duty of everyone in the Church, ordained and lay, to expose and fight public sin. Nobody can claim to be working for Social Justice, that is, the reign of Christ the King, Who must be at the head of every nation under Heaven, while tolerating and even accepting, as a good in its own right, the diabolical spread of homosexuality. And now we have this acceptance moving to enforcement.  

Do we have anything to fear from the creation of this LGBT Enforcer post? Will we find ourselves being criminalised simply for openly discussing our concerns – e.g. in the blogosphere?  Or do I exaggerate?  Over to you… 

Pope To Youth: Find Jesus In Ecumenism

Click here to read Zenit report

Comment:

All the blether about youthful “restlessness” reminds me of the assumption, commonly heard in conversation, that all teenagers  are rebellious.  I questioned it when I was a teenager myself and I question it now.  It seems designed to ignite rebellion in young people.   And sadly, only a minority, seem to be mature enough to not want to be “restless” or “rebellious”.  The Pope peddling the propaganda, really doesn’t help parents trying to convince their young offspring that “Thou Shalt  Rebel” really  isn’t the eleventh commandment. And the Pope encouraging young people to look for or find Jesus at an ecumenical gathering, really doesn’t help them to understand the unchanging and unchangeable teaching from Christ that “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”   Does it?

29th June: Feast of SS Peter & Paul

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? … For I am certain of this; that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.          (St Paul : Romans: 8:35)


From the Gospel of St Matthew…

At that time, Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi, and He asked His disciples, saying Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? But they said “Some, John the Baptist, and other some, Elias, and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: but whom do you say that I am? 

St Peter
Simon Peter answered, and said: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus answering said to them: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven: and I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee  will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.  (Matthew: 16:13-19)

 

Comment:

This is a Feast Day thread with a difference.  It is posted to mark the Feast, with bloggers encouraged to discuss all and any relevant issues connected with this holy day, as usual,  and to post favourite prayers, hymns, stories, even jokes (in the “good clean fun” category). That’s what we normally do on Feast days. 

In addition, however, this time, I wish to draw attention to the fact that a home-schooling family asked me if it would be possible to draw on the great knowledge of the Faith displayed by our bloggers, to answer some questions about key teachings on this centrally important Feast of the Church;  the doctrine of indulgences was mentioned since they’d been learning about indulgences in a lesson recently – and, naturally, I said “yes, of course”.  Ask away! 

I will email the link to that family and then it’s over to our committed team of bloggers to deliver the goods and services… 

Happy Feast day to all readers, bloggers and visitors to this site! 

Francis: Anti-Christ? Only God knows…

Steve Skojec, at the blog One Peter Five (IP5) writes:  

Over the weekend, noteworthy Catholic blogger Ann Barnhardt published an essay in which she states that she believes “Jorge Bergoglio, ‘Francis’ to be an Antipope, never having been canonically elected, and that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff.” She goes further, asserting that

The sheer quantity of evidence, and the diversity of the confluent evidence sets, is now so utterly overwhelming that I believe that a person, fully informed of the dataset, would have to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief to continue to acknowledge Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.

The same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his abdication, lightning struck the Vatican twice.

The same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his abdication, lightning struck the Vatican twice.

I am friendly with Ann. We’ve done a couple of podcasts together, and we correspond occasionally. When she’s right, she’s a rhetorical weapon of mass destruction, and one that can be a wonder to behold. That said, I don’t always agree that she’s completely dialed in (or needs to go to 11). And in this case, to be honest, I find her argument significantly less persuasive than she does. Nevertheless, I’m beginning to see it referenced in our comment box, as well as in other places online. This makes it difficult to ignore – in particular since opinions along this spectrum have, in the wake of one papal scandal after another, been showing up with increasing frequency in online Catholic discourse.

I’m not going to devote the time and research necessary to write a deeply substantive critique of Ann’s theory. Briefly, though, I do want to address some issues I have with her argument.

To begin with, three of the five prophecies she cites are of questionable provenance. The St. Francis of Assisi prophecy is the most significant of these, since to read it one feels as though it is meant for our present time. Nonetheless, it is considered apocryphal by scholars of Catholic prophecy like Desmond Birch and Emmett O’Reagan (among others). No one has traced this prophecy back to St. Francis himself — it does not appear in his existing works. The prophecy as Ann cites it comes from the 1882 book, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, by R. Washbourne. The introduction to this book itself states that it is a translation “made from the edition of the ‘Works of St. Francis’ published at Cologne in the year 1848. As the work is intended to be a practical and devotional one, no critical notes have been introduced, nor references to the authors from whom Wadding made his collection.” The Wadding in question was the 17th century Franciscan Friar Luke Wadding, whose own work is considered by some scholars to include spurious texts. In the editor’s introduction to a 1906 edition of Wadding’s text, now available online, we read that

Wadding’s edition of the Opuscula differs mainly from all preceding collections in this, that whereas the latter contained only those pieces which as regards both matter and form were the handiwork of St. Francis, Wadding felt justified in including among St. Francis’ writings many dicta of the Saint found in the early Legends.  […]

Thus it comes to pass that in Wadding’s edition, side by side with the undisputed writings of St. Francis, we find doubtful, even spurious, extracts from different sources attributed to the Seraphic Father. It must ever remain a matter of regret that Wadding, instead of following the oldest MSS. that he had at hand, was content to transcribe the incomplete and often interpolated parts of them he found in second-hand compilations, like that of Mark of Lisbon. His work from our standpoint is vitiated by imperfect research and unreliable criticism.

This 1906 edition, in fact, had many of these questionable writings removed by the Friars Minor of Quaracchi, including “all the colloquies, prophecies, parables, etc…”

The message of La Salette concerning Rome becoming “the seat of the Antichrist” bears some merit according to the Church’s prophetic understanding of that figure, but this section of the otherwise-approved La Salette apparitions has been in dispute for some time as a possible later invention of the seer Mélanie Mathieu, who was struggling with cloistered life at the time. Many scholars do not therefore consider this portion of the messages authentic. In any case Francis is most certainly not the Antichrist, though one could argue that he is a type thereof.

Finally, the Fatima message Ann cites is part of a rumored text, not part of any of the officially released secrets of Fatima. Fr. Paul Kramer — himself also of the same opinion as Ann about Benedict being the true pope — attributed this quote to a paraphrase of Cardinal Oattaviani concerning an unrevealed Fatima secret in May of this year. With no official documentation of this language, it serves as a point of interest, but cannot be relied upon for accuracy until the full texts of those messages is finally published.

Moving on to the question of Pope Benedict’s resignation, Archbishop Gänswein’s statements about an expanded papal ministry, though newsworthy because of his closeness to both popes, are still technically nothing but his own theorizing. Similarly, the idea that Pope Benedict’s abdication falls under the canonical invalidity of “substantial error” is, as far as any outside observer is concerned, tenuous at best. We don’t know that he actually believed that he could expand the Petrine Ministry into a diarchy (and in fact he has flatly denied the theories that there was some defect in his resignation) regardless of what Gänswein theorizes. Recall the letter that the Pope Emeritus sent to Andrea Tornielli in 2014:

“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry” and the “speculations” surrounding it are “simply absurd”.

Joseph Ratzinger was not forced to resign, he was not pressured into it and he did not fall victim to a conspiracy: his resignation was genuine and valid and there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today. There is a reigning Pope, Francis, who leads the Catholic Church and an Emeritus Pope whose “only purpose” is to pray for his successor.

I understand why people question this, but barring something concrete from Benedict himself, it remains within the realm of conjecture, not certitude, to assert that his abdication took place under different circumstances than he himself has admitted.

The questions surrounding the election of Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio are, I think, somewhat more meritorious, inasmuch as we have the admission of the members of the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” of a conspiracy to put Bergoglio on the Petrine throne. That said, we do not know that Bergoglio himself colluded with them, and if he did not, even their offenses would not invalidate his election (though they should, if Universi Dominici Gregis is to be believed, result in the automatic excommunication of those involved.)

Ann goes on to list “Bergoglio’s Litany of Heresies,” and she’ll get no argument from me that these are all deeply troubling. Are they all manifestly heretical, though? Are they obdurately and formally so? Again, this is where certitude fails. And if they did amount to material heresy, theologians remain uncertain about whether the Bellarmine/Suarez hypothesis really plays out as hypothesized.

The rest of Ann’s nearly 5,000 word essay deals mostly with her own competence to make such claims, and rebuttals to anticipated responses. Her argument, such as it is, is expended in the first half of her piece. In fact, if one removes her introductory statement and the sections on prophecy, Bergoglian heresies, her authority to make such statements, and anticipated objections/rebuttals, one is left with less than a thousand words of actual argumentation about the improper resignation of Benedict and the invalid election of Francis.

And I find neither section persuasive, for the reasons I’ve already stated.

Is it possible that Ann is correct? Yes, it is, but we can’t know it with certainty until the Church makes a declaration as such. Is it possible that she’s wrong? Yes, and I find this to be more likely. Not that it improves things — it’s a much harder situation to deal with if Francis is a validly elected pope than if he isn’t; in the latter case, he can simply be dismissed, and his works undone. In the former case, we have to contend with the reality of the most theologically destructive pope in Church history, and the fallout of that is most likely going to take generations to set right.

But again: I think arguments like these waste valuable time. Someone wrote to me a few weeks ago to get my opinion on another article along the lines of Ann’s essay. My response was as follows:

Frankly, I tend to stay away from these kinds of arguments. They can be interesting, but they can also tempt us to try to ascertain with some degree of certitude what can only be known by an authoritative judgment from the Church.

Is it possible that Francis was invalidly elected or that Benedict invalidly resigned? Yes. It’s possible. Will attempting to reach these conclusions on our own give us any peace of mind, or even a form of actionable certainty? Nope.

For my part, I trust that while Christ may be asleep in the boat as the storm worsens, He can quiet the waves with a word. He is asking us to simply be faithful enough to trust that He will do so when the time comes.

Eventually, this will all get sorted out. Whether Francis is an antipope or a valid pope, his papacy will undoubtedly be condemned by future generations. The charisms of indefectibility and infallibility still apply, and Francis will not be able to unmake them. Instead, he’s forced to go around them. And that means being sneaky and underhanded, which is what we’re all picking up on. He will lead many souls astray, but  Our Lord predicted that there would be such false teachers and prophets, and St. Paul said (Acts 20, IIRC) that there would be wolves who would enter in amongst the shepherds.

We’ll get through it. The way I see it, we all have enough headaches without trying to sort out a juridical mess that might just require divine guidance. And nobody wants to be a sedevacantist. They’re about as much fun as lemonjuice at a papercut party.

Ann is NOT a sedevacantist, as she makes clear. She just thinks we still have the same pope we had in February, 2013. Is she right? Not my call. Does it matter? On an objective level, of course it does. To know the true pope from the false one is better than not to know it. But we can’t know that with the certitude of an ecclesiastical judgment. Not yet.

Trying to figure out whether a man who claims to be pope is or is not the pope by reading things on the Internet and drawing conclusions from them is like trying to diagnose your own ailment by Googling your symptoms: the odds are you’re going to convince yourself you have some rare or incurable condition instead of whatever ordinary malady you’re actually suffering from; but even if you get it right and it’s something just awful, what are you going to do about it? You still have to go to the doctor to get it taken care of. You can’t just treat yourself.

Ann herself admits, practically speaking, that her conclusion really changes nothing for the average Catholic in the pews:

First and foremost: Masses in which an antipope is commemorated in the Canon by the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice IS A VALID MASS.  The Eucharist is confected, the Holy Sacrifice is offered.   

Further, I have been assured in the strongest possible terms that for me to receive Holy Communion in a Mass in which I know that Bergoglio has been commemorated as Pope is NOT an act of hypocrisy on my part. I know that the Mass is valid.  I know that the Eucharist was confected. I know that Our Lord is desirous to come to me and I to Him in the Sacrament of the Altar, provided I am in a state of grace.

If my position on Bergoglio is correct, which I obviously believe that it is, what this means is that the commemoration of him as Pope in the Canon is either ILLICIT, or MISTAKEN.  We have a clear historical precedent for this.  During the Great Western Schism, due purely to political intrigue and NOT any questions of heresy, there were three men simultaneously claiming to be pope.  One of these men was the True Pope, and the other two were antipopes.  These antipopes were not blaspheming heretics like Bergoglio.  Again, the entire situation was due purely to POLITICAL INTRIGUE.  And so, two giants of the Church – both saints and one a Doctor of the Church, backed different “popes”.  What this means is that one of these saints was wrong, and one was right.  Who was the saint that backed the True Pope?  It was St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, and laywoman. Did you know that St. Catherine was NOT a professed nun?  She was a Dominican tertiary (third order) who was given permission to wear the Dominican habit.  She was a laywoman.

And who was the saint, one of the true intellectual giants of the Church, who was wrong and backed an antipope?  It was St. Vincent Ferrer, who was a priest, and thus offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass many, many times having commemorated an antipope in the Canon.

Here is an interesting precision: St. Vincent Ferrer’s commemoration of an antipope is not even called “illicit” – it is called “mistaken”.

My suggestion is this: rather than worry about which one of the two popes in Rome is the real one — something the Church will resolve in time, without our help — I believe we should focus our efforts on combating the errors that Francis is promoting and Benedict is doing nothing to stop. And we should do so by promoting authentic Catholic teaching as an antidote. Coming to a better understanding of that teaching, and finding new and effective ways to disseminate it, is far more efficacious than idle speculation over something we can’t determine definitively and will never have the power to remedy.

Comment: 

The position taken by the author of the above article at One Peter Five is exactly that of Catholic Truth, as regular readers and bloggers here will know.  Steve’s excellent research work, especially with regard to the quotes offered to substantiate the theory that Pope Francis is the “anti-Christ”  (notably the quote popularly attributed to St Francis) makes the above article a singularly important contribution to the debate about this pontificate;  comments are invited which will, I’m sure, largely merely endorse the thrust of Steve’s argument that it is really pointless to speculate on the status of Pope Francis’ pontificate, because only God knows the answer to the “anti-Christ” question.  We have no authority or power to pronounce on this.  If necessary, the Church will do so in due course.  Our task is simple: we recognise Francis as Pope but resist his errors – as we resisted the errors of his modernist predecessors elected since the Second Vatican Council.  

June: Month of the Sacred Heart…

As always on our devotional threads, we may discuss any issues involved, and post favourite prayers, hymns, images, videos, stories etc. in order to pay tribute to, and spread, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  This devotion to the merciful Sacred Heart of Jesus is of particular importance in these times when a false mercy is being preached, even within the Church. O Sacred Heart of Jesus, we place all our trust in Thee.

26 May: Feast of Corpus Christi

PANIS ANGELICUS (Lyric)
Cesar Franck

Panis angelicus
Fit panis hominum;
Dat panis coelicus
Figuris terminum;
O res mirabilis!
Manducat dominum

Pauper, pauper
Servus et humilis.
Pauper, pauper
Servus et humilis.

Panis angelicus
Fit panis hominum;
Dat panis coelicus
Figuris terminum;
O res mirabilis!
Manducat dominum

Pauper, pauper
Servus et humilis.
Pauper, pauper
Servus, servus et humilis. 
________________
(translation)
HEAVENLY BREAD

Heavenly bread
That becomes the bread for all mankind;
Bread from the angelic host
That is the end of all imaginings.
Oh, miraculous thing!
This body of God will nourish 

Even the poorest,
The most humble of servants.
Even the poorest,
The most humble of servants.

Heavenly bread
That becomes the bread for all mankind;
Bread from the angelic host
That is the end of all imaginings.
Oh, miraculous thing!
This body of God will nourish 

Even the poorest,
The most humble of servants.
Even the poorest,
The most humble of servants.


From the Vatican…


OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS 
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

 Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling

The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather early on a process took place to change this practice.

From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.

Therefore, for various reasons, among which the Angelic Doctor cites respect for the Sacrament, he writes: “. . . 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” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Over the centuries the Church has always characterized the moment of Holy Communion with sacredness and the greatest respect, forcing herself constantly to develop to the best of her ability external signs that would promote understanding of this great sacramental mystery. In her loving and pastoral solicitude the Church has made sure that the faithful receive Holy Communion having the right interior dispositions, among which dispositions stands out the need for the Faithful to comprehend and consider interiorly the Real Presence of Him Whom they are to receive. (See The Catechism of Pope Pius X, nn. 628 & 636). The Western Church has established kneeling as one of the signs of devotion appropriate to communicants. A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, (“Sacrament of Love”), teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates and promotes the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic Christ.

From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: “Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration” [The Spirit of the Liturgy(Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter “This Congregation” of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].

John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (“The Church comes from the Eucharist”), wrote in n. 61: “By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’” 

In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.  Source – Vatican website

From the Catholic Truth Team…

Happy Feast Day!

Comment:

As always on these devotional threads, readers are invited to discuss any relevant issues, but also to post favourite prayers, hymns, stories – you name it… 

Reminder:  if you wish to post a video straight onto the page instead of merely the link, then you right click on the video screen (as it’s playing, if you wish) to select “copy embed code”.  Then go to the comment box here, and right click to select “paste”.  Submit the comment and when it goes up, you will see that the video itself has appeared, not just the link.  Now, (I hear you saying) there’s a hint to post some of the lovely hymns of adoration to the Blessed Sacrament! Whatever – Happy Feast of Corpus Christi to all bloggers and visitors to this site … Enjoy!