Communion on the tongue vs in hand by Divine Mercy

Sleight of Hand - Reception Deception BY: C HURC HMILITANT.T V

Preface Have you ever wondered why some churches distribute Our Lord's sacred body onto the tongue of the faithful during Holy Communion? Why do you think most Churches in the West promote the reception of Communion, in the hand? This publication (ePub) is a collection and assembly of production notes of Michael Voris’ and Brad Eli’s [ChurchMilitant.TV] research and production of the abuse (heresy) of receiving the most Holy Eucharist on ones hand called “Sleight of Hand - Reception Deception”. The foretaste of the thirteen episode series “Communion in the Hand Church Scandal?” aired on the Mic’D Up broadcast, Wednesday 04-29-2014 can be found on the ChurchMilitant.TV Premium Channel. The entire video of “Communion in the Hand Church Scandal” and the thirteen episode series “Sleight of Hand - Reception Deception” are accessible using a WiFi connection and having a premium subscription at ChurchMilitant.TV which only costs ten dollars per month, a bargain at any rate. What’s your soul worth? In this thirteen series production, you will learn the real reason why communion-in-the-hand has been so widely pushed and accepted and what the Popes have said about this abuse. It is my hope that after reviewing this ePub, following the various hyper-links, reading the supporting documents and watching the videos you will come to the realization that for fifty plus years the church hierarchy (prelates) promulgated and encourage this abuse which led to the evisceration of the Catholic Church in the world. It is impossible to know the numbers of souls that have been lost for eternity by this watering down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the faith in the Real Presence. As you study the clear and irrefutable evidence in this work you will discover this practice of reception of Communion in the hand, was not simply a social experiment but a deliberate, orchestrated act of disobedience against Rome and

our Lords church. You will also learn the churches “preferred” posture to receive our Lord is on the tongue and kneeling. Read and re-read this ePub, the supporting documents and videos in this publication and earnestly pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit on how YOU should approach the reverent reception of our Lord. If you don’t believe in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - you should not be receiving the Eucharist. It would be better for your soul to attend a Protestant church and not receive the Eucharist unworthily and commit a mortal sin. If you TRULY believed in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist you wouldn’t just fall in line like sheep, as if going through a drive-through window, snatching up a Happy Meal and then running off. We need to get back to the REVERENT preparation and reception of our Lord. We must protect against profanation [which occurs when receiving by hand] and bring back proper preparation, meditation, and reverent reception, and bring back kneelers (Prie Dieu) and/or the alter rails to facilitate this process of receiving our Lord properly and reverently. Michael Voris’ thesis is that the practice of “Reception on the Hand” was never supported, encouraged or promulgated by Rome but came as an act of disobedience from renegade prelates which dismissed the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. The indult for this practice of reception in the hand was received on June 17, 1977 and came against the wishes of Pope Paul VI and based on a lie promulgated by senior prelates that told Pope Paul VI that a “prevailing custom” was present and that it could not be overcome. While receiving our Lord in our hand is not intrinsically evil, it is by all accounts dangerous, and has no mechanism to guard against profanation. While you may not want to here the facts, see the evidence and hear the truth of the matter you must connect the dots and see there is a direct correlation between the introduction of the practice (receiving by hand) and the exodus of the Catholics from the pews of our churches.

Lastly, we need to earnestly pray for the souls of the prelates and lay-people that have promulgated and encouraged this abuse and scandal in the Church. I am reminded of Saint John Chrysostom’s idiom: “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts" and I wonder if this prophecy speaks to this very abuse we have seen in the church the last five decades. I pray the material (irrefutable facts) in this ePub will deepen your faith and knowledge in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and you will become a voice in your parish to correct this abuse, which exists in our church today. Let us all pray to the venerable Fulton J. Sheen for his intersession that this abuse be eliminated and corrected. God’s blessing to you and your! Brian F. Weber – Ceres, CA.

To obtain the maximum benefits of this publication I encourage you to become a premium member of ChurchMilitantTV.com and avail yourself to the hundreds of hours of premium Orthodox content and some of the hyperlinks embedded in this ePub. Use the link below to sign up for your subscription today. http://www.churchmilitant.tv/premsignup.php

iii

CHAPTER 1

Episode One: Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t blame Vatican II

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [09:03] video content of this chapter.

Hello everyone I'm Michael Voris. Catholics today, often in somewhat of a 'knee jerk reaction', tend to relate modern changes in the Catholic Church to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council... changes like the manner in which the Faithful are given Holy Communion. For over ONE-THOUSAND years of continuous universal tradition, the faithful were united in the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue. However, in a few short years following the Council, Michael Voris this age-old practice somehow changed quickly. In some countries, the faithful were taught to begin receiving our Lord's Sacred Body into their hands. Because this monumental change happened in the wake of Vatican II, many people naturally believed, and still do, that the Council was the REASON for the change. But what would you say if we told you that Vatican II did NOT, in fact, call for such a change? Would you be surprised to know that the vast majority of the Council Fathers, (the Bishops who attended Vatican II) were staunchly OPPOSED to changing this age old custom? Well, if you are Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, you wouldn't be surprised to hear that at all. In fact, his Eminence wrote about this very subject in a preface he penned for a book composed by Bishop Schneider titled “Dominus Est – It is the Lord.” In this preface Cardinal Ranjith wrote, 5

Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith

“I think it is now time to evaluate carefully the practice of Communion in the hand and, if necessary, to ABANDON what was actually NEVER CALLED FOR in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium nor by the Council Fathers but was, in fact, “accepted” AFTER it was introduced as an ABUSE in some countries.” Powerful words from a brave Cardinal. In 2008, then ARCHBISHOP Ranjith stated those insights while he was Secretary in the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Two years after putting those statements in writing he was made a CARDINAL by Pope Benedict XVI. Bishop Schneider's book, calling for an END to Communion in the hand, to which Ranjith added his own observations in the preface, was published by none other than the Vatican's OWN publishing division known as the Vatican Press. In it Schneider championed the Catholic Church's apostolic teaching that Jesus is TRULY present – BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY, albeit veiled to our senses by the appearances of bread and wine.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

He further called for an end to the practice of Communion in the hand which he considers to be TOXIC to this 'Mystery of Faith’ that some Catholics so often struggle with. Noteworthy too is that Francis Cardinal Arinze added his OWN to the back of Bishop Schneider's book saying, “I have read the whole book with delight. It is excellent.” Who is Cardinal Arinze, you ask?

Cardinal Francis Arinze

For six years, including the period during which he endorsed Bishop Schneider's book, Arinze, was the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. This is the congregation of the Vatican entrusted by the Holy Father to oversee all liturgical matters in the Church. Cardinal Arinze is no light-weight when it comes to such liturgical issues and is completely competent to makes such assessments. Cardinal Ranjith went on to contrast the two different manners in which the faithful receive the Body of Christ. Referring first to Communion in the hand he said, “This practice contributes to a gradual, growing WEAKENING of the attitude of reverence toward the Sacred Eucharistic Species. The earlier practice, on the other hand, better SAFEGUARDS the sense of reverence.” He poignantly added, “At the same time, speaking of Communion in the hand, it is NECESSARY for ALL to recognize that the practice was introduced as an ABUSE, and hurriedly, in many places within the Church right after the Council...” As we move throughout this season, you may be somewhat shocked to learn that this Cardinal did in fact know exactly what he was speaking of. And as to HOW Communion in the hand was introduced, at least in the United States,... well, that gives rise to the title of this series, “Sleight of Hand – Reception Deception”. Before going on, we would like to state, just for the record, that our END GAME in sharing all this is to be a part of the New Evangelization or what John Paul the second called the re-evangelization of Catholics who have left the practice of their faith. There are those who have completely left the Church due to the abuse of Communion in the hand. This abuse has weakened their faith, giving them a

reason to treat the reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist as though they were buying a bagel from a bagel shop. Then there are others who see the Church promoting this abuse and are leaving because they are aware of the dignity due our Lord and are disgusted by the allowance of such reception. Like Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Ranjith, Cardinal Arinze and many other princes of the Church, we, although not at all on par with these intellectual and spiritual giants, do wish to bring the faithful into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ, Who gives Himself to us all as the Bread of Life. Like the Bishops, we truly feel that peoples reverence for Jesus, as the Eucharist, is compromised by the practice of communion in the hand. In exposing how this abuse became prevalent, part of our goal is to exonerate the Council, the Council Fathers, and the Popes, who as we will show, were united AGAINST this practice from the beginning. They, therefore, represent Susanna from the book of Daniel – the spotless bride of Christ – who was falsely accused of infidelity toward her beloved spouse. In the book of Daniel, chapter thirteen, Susanna is an allegory for Holy Mother Church – delicate, beautiful and without stain of sin. She is falsely accused by those in authority of marital infidelity, which is often used by the prophets to stand for infidelity to God in religious affairs. The young prophet Daniel, by close examination, proves to the people that the 'elders' or 'periti' have born false witness against her and that she is innocent of all wrong-doing. Some leaders’s in the Church, have purposely deceived and continue to deceive the faithful into thinking that the Church has pushed for this type of reception, when in fact by sleight of hand it is the leaders, some of them, who promoted this abuse. We thus take on the role of Daniel, who through careful examination of the facts, will come to the defense of Susanna – our Holy Mother Church. 8

In the book of Exodus it’s recorded how God revealed Himself to Moses as a fire…which while appearing to burn a bush on Mt. Sinai... miraculously did not consume it. We will reveal to you how relatively few individuals, acting from authority within the Church, are responsible for taking Communion in the hand, like a match, and setting the liturgical forest into a raging wild fire. Unlike the divine flame Moses saw on Mt. Sinai, the firestorm of Communion in the hand DOES indeed consume believers' faith in the Eucharist where ever it’s flames have been allowed to spread. God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

CHAPTER 2

Episode Two: Papal Preference Part I

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [06:54] video content of this chapter.

Hello everyone. I'm Michael Voris. If you're like most Catholics you have an idea that a change in Church practice must mean the Pope's on board with it, right? Well, it SHOULD. Emphasis on SHOULD. But if it DOESN'T, how do you know? The Roman Pontiff is six THOUSAND miles away from us here in America. Communion on the tongue is a tradition with roots growing deep into the Church's rich liturgical soil.

Michael Voris

This liturgical custom was suddenly uprooted in the 1970s in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s place the practice of revising holy communion in the hand began AGAIN. The abuse had been nixed over a thousand years ago by Church authorities, notably at the synod of Rouen in 650 AD among other places. The practice of Communion-in-the-hand sprang up suddenly after Vatican Two in Belgium and Holland... contrary to Church law which did not allow it. Once Communion in the hand became a common practice, people stopped receiving on the tongue resulting in the loss of faith within the Real Presence. But modern media is a powerful tool for uncovering truth and conveying it. Here at Church Militant. TV we have gathered some footage showing first hand what Pope Benedict XVI said regarding distribution of the Sacred Bread of Life.

Pope Benedict XVI

MOVIE 2.1 Pope Benedict started distributing Christ’s Body exclusively in this manner, directly on the tongue, since 2009 on the Feast of Corpus Christi.

FS with audio 0:10 – 1:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3zHpo3gtN0 Take a look for yourself.

Pope Benedict started distributing Christ’s Body exclusively in this manner, directly on the tongue, since 2009 on the Feast of Corpus Christi.

You may be familiar with Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Basically the Chief Justice of the Church's Supreme Court…well take a look at what he had to say about the Pope giving Holy Communion ONLY to those kneeling and on the tongue. Cardinal Cardinal Burke knows this was not a mere chance Raymond Leo Burke event as he just stated. Quote, “The Holy Father is giving a very clear lesson by his own insistence that the faithful receive kneeling and on the tongue. He's teaching us something. This is a decision which he obviously made with much thought and for good reasons.” MOVIE 2.2 Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXzsyuytMlQ [FS 0:0 – 0:46]

MOVIE 2.3 Raymond Arroyo EWTN: Reporting the new protocol when receiving communion from the Pope, on the tongue and kneeling!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nmk9ty1clc [FS 4:32 – 6:19]

Here too is EWTN news speaking in depth about the same papal event.

Did you catch that news flash? Quote: “The Pope's Master of Ceremonies Monsignor Guido Marini announced a new Vatican protocol for receiving Communion in L'Osservatore Romano this week. From now on to receive Communion from Pope Benedict at Papal liturgies one will have to kneel and receive on the tongue.” In 2013 Pope Francis chose to keep Monsignor Marini as Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, because of Marini's traditional formation.Tune in next week as we continue revealing the unmistakable Papal preference for Communion on the Tongue. God love you. I'm Michael Voris 14

Monsignor Guido Marini

CHAPTER 3

Episode Three: Papal Preference Part II

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [08:11] video content of this chapter.

Hello everyone. I'm Michael Voris. The Roman Pontiff, like any leader of people has to deal with both bureaucracy and the human element. This means he may not always like some things going on in the Church, such as communion in the hand. We've gathered some footage so you can see for yourself how our current Pontiff actually distributes Holy Communion at Papal masses in Rome and how he has instructed his priests to distribute Holy Communion at those same masses.

This clip shows first the pope and then the priests at his papal mass distributing the Bread of Life to the faithful at the same papal mass in Rome on April 14, 2013. The following content might shock certain Catholics, viewer discretion is advised.

Michael Voris

MOVIE 3.1 Receiving on the Tongue and Kneeling April 14 2013

GX Papal Mass on April 14, 2013] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycwLD_LcBKQ [FS 0:0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0:39]

Now take a look at this video clip of a second papal mass also in Rome a week later on April 21, 2013. MOVIE 3.2 Receiving on the Tongue and Kneeling April 21, 2013

GX Papal Mass on April 21, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycwLD_LcBKQ [FS 0:40 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1:15]

It may not surprise many to see the Holy Father distributing the Sacred Body of our Lord onto the tongue of kneeling communicants who come to him to receive Christ. But rare and wonderful indeed were scenes of these brave and pious priests who PROTECTED their vulnerable Eucharistic Lord from possibly being profaned by common handling or loss of sacred particles. At both papal masses were seen these priests REDIRECTING communicants who had put out their hand to receive our Lord â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to INSTEAD receive on their tongue in order to reverently and securely receive their God. This would be considered a MAJOR pastoral taboo by many Church leaders in America and yet that is EXACTLY what is being done in Rome. 17

In our last episode we showed footage of Pope Benedict XVI distributing the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue at his papal mass.

Pope Benedict XVI

We also showed video testimony of Cardinal Burke stating that Pope Benedict, by distributing in this manner, was DELIBERATELY teaching us the PROPER way to distribute and to receive our Lord’s Sacred Body. Rolling back the years to a papacy prior to Benedict we look at testimony from (now) Saint John Paul II. In the 1980 Apostolic Exhortation Dominicae Cenae, John Paul II, in section 11 wrote; “In some countries the practice of receiving communion in the hand has been introduced... However, cases of deplorable lack of... towards the

MOVIE 3.3 Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke

Pope Benedict, by distributing in this manner, was DELIBERATELY teaching teaching us the PROPER way to distribute and to receive our Lord’s Sacred Body

Eucharist….How eloquent therefore, …..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....” “In some countries the practice of receiving communion in the hand has been introduced… However, cases of deplorable LACK of respect toward the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable NOT ONLY to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the PASTORS of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist… He then addresses that priests alone are to handle to Blessed Sacrament, by saying “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….” “There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this ... During his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980, John Paul II was asked about the practice of Communion-in-the-hand by a [Communion in the hand]. “But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.” reporter from the magazine Stee-May Des Gla-Bens. The Holy Father responded: “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.” In 1969, Paul VI, ordered the Congregation for Divine Worship to prepare an instruction, which was called Memoriale Domini.

Pope John Paul II

He wanted the instruction prepared as a way to keep the practice of Holy Communion in the hand from spreading even further. He personally proofread the document, corrected it, and then signed it. 19

“This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.” In this document Pope Paul declares “This method of distributing holy communion MUST BE RETAINED, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.” “The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.”

Pope Paul VI

The Holy Father next speaks of the NECESSITY of receiving Communion on the tongue which prepares you to receive MORE graces saying… “The custom does NOT detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is PART of that preparation that is NEEDED for the MOST fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.” “This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in ‘ordinary bread and wine' that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which 'The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.’ Pope Paul VI goes on to say… “This reverence SHOWS that it is not a sharing in 'ordinary bread and wine' that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord...Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, MORE effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the PROPER respect, decorum and dignity. “Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity.”

“Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.' ” And most importantly, the Holy Father, concerned about fragments of the host being lost promotes Communion on the tongue saying, “It ENSURES that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.' ” Seems pretty clear to us that not a single pope had anything good to say about Communion-in the-hand but have shown their overwhelming preference continually for Communion-on-the-tongue. In Psalmum XL Enarratio, PL XIV, 1134 “Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna.” “Where there is Peter there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal!” In the fourth century St. Ambrose, Father and Doctor of the Church, said Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna. Which is rendered “Where there is Peter there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal!” Rome has spoken and yet for many the cause is not ended. Will you stand with Peter? God love you. I'm Michael Voris

Saint Ambrose

CHAPTER 4

Episode Four: Mysterium Fidei

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [13:03] video content of this chapter.

Hello everyone. I'm Michael Voris. As we have already learned from Cardinal Ranjith, Vatican II was NOT the originator of the practice known as Communion in the hand, that this practice started as an ABUSE of liturgical law only AFTER Vatican II had ended. Anyone can see from a quick scan of the sixteen documents, which alone were the sole product of the Second Vatican Council, that only ONE document pertained to the liturgy. This document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was the first of the sixteen documents produced at Vatican II, called for Latin to be RETAINED and Gregorian chant to be given a place of PREFERENCE in the liturgy. Huh? Imagine that – the much heralded 'spirit of Vatican II’ literally PROMOTING Cardinal Malcom Ranjith Latin and Gregorian chant in the liturgy. Nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium even remotely called for handling our Lord in a casual or careless fashion such as receiving our Lord’s sacred body in their hand. Some people, who know their history, will point back to the reign of Pope Paul VI when Communion in the hand got its impious start. You may remember that Paul VI was elected pope in 1963 and died in 1978. Thus some people assume that Paul VI was somehow ‘okay’ with this practice which was canonically illegal in his day. Communion in the hand did start in the later sixties in Holland and Belgium in defiance of the 23

Pope Paul VI

law which mandated that Holy Communion be distributed ONLY on the tongue of communicants. The disobedient practice followed the heretical teaching of the Dutch Catechism published by the bishops in those countries in 1966. This catechism was full of errors pertaining to the doctrine on the Eucharist. The impious practice of Communion in the hand followed the heretical teaching about the Eucharist found in the Dutch Catechism. This proves once again the age old maxim ‘Lex credendi' Lex orandi' – meaning 'as you believe so you pray'. If people don't think it is really Jesus who they are receiving then their actions will reflect that. Pope Paul VI knew that where faith goes, actions soon follow. So in 1965, one year before the Dutch Catechism hit the streets he wrote the Apostolic Exhortation titled Mysterium Fidei prophetically addressing the problems of ever growing loss of faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Pope Paul VI discerning that faith in the Real Presence was in danger, and to protect the faith of the universal flock entrusted to his care wrote exhortation to awaken our belief in the reality of the Blessed Sacrament and enliven our devotion towards HIM who is present there. Paul VI gathered many statements by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church made throughout the centuries to clearly show what the Church teaches about Holy Communion… namely that it is really Jesus who they receive... His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Paul VI states in paragraph five what the Church clearly teaches regarding the Real Presence in these words, “...the sacrament in which those who participate in it through holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, and thus receive grace, which is the beginning of eternal life, and the 'medicine of immortality' according to Our Lord's words: “The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

The Roman Pontiff says he is concerned about wrong faith in the Eucharist in paragraph nine which gives rise to his Apostolic Exhortation saying: “There are... a number of reasons for serious pastoral concern… some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions... on the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith… The Pope goes back five hundred years to reference the Council of Trent as it did such an extraordinary job of teaching the faith on the Eucharist saying; “To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible... to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ… Speaking of the Second Vatican Council he says, “And so, with the aim of seeing to it that the hope to which the Council has given rise that a new wave of Eucharistic devotion will sweep over the Church not be reduced to nil through the sowing of the seeds of false opinions, We have decided to use Our apostolic authority and speak our mind to you on this subject... ” What a caring and vigilant shepherd he was! How often is he berated by those who don't understand all that he did to protect his flock from spiritual harm. In Paragraph fifty-two Paul VI doesn't hesitate to go back eight hundred years to such a clear teaching on the Eucharist as was embodied in an oath required by Pope Gregory VII of a certain heretic who denied that our Lord was indeed present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine. “Thus it was that Our predecessor, St. Gregory VII, commanded him to swear to the following oath: "I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and life giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world —and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side—and not just as a sign and by

reason of the power of the sacrament, but in the very truth and reality of their substance and in what is proper to their nature.”” According to a recent Gallup pole survey, SEVENTY PERCENT of Catholics today could NOT take this oath as they do not believe the true teaching on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. They are like those disciples in chapter six of St. John who when confronted with our Lord's own teaching on the Eucharist left him as recorded in these words; “Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it.... After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Pope Paul then goes all the way back to the earliest centuries where the Fathers of the Church spoke about due reverence to our Lord when receiving Him in Holy Communion. In paragraphs fifty-five he writes: “As St. Augustine says: "It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having FIRST adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we WOULD BE SINNING if we did not do so.” But ARE the faithful adoring our Lord prior to receiving HIM in Holy Communion? And how does the Church recommend to the faithful that they fulfill this precept to adore our Eucharistic Lord prior to communion? To answer that we turn to a 1980 Instruction from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship titled Inaestimabile Donum – the Inestimable Gift which pertained to the Eucharist. In paragraph 11 we read quote: “The Church has always required from the faithful respect and reverence for the Eucharist at the moment of receiving it.... When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.” Promoting Communion on the Tongue for this very reason the same Congregation in 1969 said,

“Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, MORE effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the PROPER respect, decorum and dignity.” Paul VI quotes Origen from the third century of the Church regarding the possible loss of particles of the Host by the faithful saying: “In fact, the faithful regarded themselves as guilty, and rightly so as Origen recalls, if, after they had received the body of the Lord… some part of it were to fall to the ground through negligence.” How little concern there is today about the loss of fragmentary parts of the Eucharist with those particles still on uncleansed ciboriums and chalices, on surfaces of altars, and on hands of countless communicants ready to so easily fall to the ground and be trampled upon. The above mentioned congregation in the same instruction promoted Communion on the tongue for this reason also, quote: “Lastly, it ENSURES that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.' ” And finally, in paragraph sixty-two of Mysterium Fidei Pope Paul VI states clearly that he does not intend to change the manner in which the faithful receive our Lord quote: “We are not saying this with any thought of effecting a change in the manner of keeping the Eucharist and of receiving Holy Communion that has been laid down by subsequent ecclesiastical laws still in force” Going back to the Gallup pole survey finding that only THIRTY PERCENT actually believe that they receive Jesus at Holy Communion, we then look to some reasons WHY the faithful don't believe anymore. Unlike the Dutch Catechism in Holland and Belgium, American Clerics generally don't preach heresy openly from the pulpits. But this lack of belief in the Eucharist is nevertheless common for church goers as the pole clearly shows.

It can be attributable in part to the 'Heresy of Silence' whereby the realities spoken of by Paul VI especially in this Apostolic Exhortation Mysterium Fidei – THE MYSTERY of FAITH are RARELY if ever mentioned at all from the pulpit, or from bishop chanceries, or from bishop conference headquarters. But this heresy by OMISSION can't be laid at the feet of Pope Paul VI as shown by his apostolic exhortation all about the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion. Loss of faith can also be attributed to the 'Heresy of Practice’ whereby the actions of the faithful are not in accord with the reality of their belief in the sacredness of the Eucharistic species. This heresy by COMMISSION includes such actions as the laity casually handling the sacred species without any REAL necessity. As well as consecrated vessels commonly not being cleansed of the sacred particles after holy communion, people giving no sign of adoration at the time they receive Holy Communion, AND of course, the practice itself of Communion in the hand. In the coming episodes we will show how Paul VI with the Instruction Memoriale Domini valiantly attacked this heresy at it’s root.

God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

CHAPTER 5

Episode Five: Where Faith Goes Actions Soon Follow

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [09:51] video content of this chapter.

Hello everyone and welcome to our show Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand, which is now common place, was developed by the original Protestant Revolutionaries to destroy faith in the Real Presence. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said, “Live what you believe. Or you will believe what you live.” Our repeated actions help shape our beliefs about the world around us. The enemies of the Catholic Church know this relationship too. They’ve even applied it in the past to attack belief in the Eucharist and the Sacramental Priesthood. An early example of this was the Arians who splintered from the Catholic Church in the fourth century when they taught the heresy that Jesus wasn't Divine. They underscored their rejection of His Divinity by practicing Communion in the hand. In 1965, Pope Paul VI in his apostolic exhortation Mysterium Fidei says of these same Arians that they were,

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

“The only ones to communicate [that is... receive communion] always standing and with hands outstretched... who obstinately denied the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and who could not see in the Sacred Eucharist any more than a simple symbol of union, which can be taken and handled at will.” In the sixteenth century we find many people who were raised Catholic but then found themselves in churches setup by protestant revolutionaries of the Anglicans, Calvinists and Lutherans to name a few. 30

These former Catholics had been accustomed to seeing the priest ALONE touching the Eucharist with his consecrated hands. They had grown up receiving Holy Communion on their tongues and while kneeling. Old habits die hard. So many of these former Catholics continued to receive on their tongue and while kneeling early on in these protestant communities. One such protestant revolutionary in the fifteen hundreds was a former Catholic by the name of Martin Bucer. Bucer not only was raised Catholic, he was also a Dominican friar. He would go on to have great influence amongst Lutherans, Calvinists and the Anglicans. In the book, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, we read how Bucer urged the Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer to change the Anglican liturgy. Bucer Martin Bucer directed Cranmer to rewrite the Book of Common Prayer so that communion in the hand would become the new norm and communion on the tongue would only be tolerated until it was eventually banned. Bucer wanted everyone to handle the host so that all would stop believing that the Eucharist was special. Bucer did not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament nor in the Priesthood. For him it was only logical then to treat both with contempt by insisting that communion be handled by all. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, is a modern day John the Baptist. He is traveling the world pointing out to Catholics that Jesus is in their midst in the Eucharist and should be reverenced in their actions. To this end he wrote a book Dominus Est... It is the Lord. In his book he notes Catholics today often do not kneel in a line at the communion rail but move in 31

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

lines up to the priest, and receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing. This is identical to what the protestant revolutionaries introduced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a denial of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Sacramental Priesthood. Bishop Schneider writes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Some synods of the Calvinist Church of Holland, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, established formal bans on receiving Communion kneeling: Very early, the people might have... received Communion kneeling but... several synods forbade this in order to avoid any suggestion that the bread was being venerated.â&#x20AC;? At this point it is interesting to note that the Arians in the four hundreds, Bucer in the fifteen hundreds and Calvinists in the sixteen hundreds all purposely directed the people to stand for communion and to receive it in their hand. They chose these methods precisely so that the people would learn by these repetitive actions to stop believing in the Sacramental Priesthood and in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The people stopped living in accord with what they had formerly believed and started believing what they now impiously lived. In 1996, when the Bishops of Argentina were allowing Communion in the hand in their dioceses, Bishop Rodolfo Laise stood alone in opposing the practice and would not allow it in his diocese of San Luis, Argentina. He was criticized for this by his fellow bishops which resulted in him writing the book, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History. This book is a compendium of source material, material that could be obtained from Rome only by a bishop... along with commentary from experts he enlisted to assist him in this singular endeavor. We will be leaning heavily on his work in Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise this episode. In seventeenth century Holland, Calvinists started communion in the hand to express their denial of the Real Presence and the Sacramental Priesthood. 32

Centuries later, in the 1960's, the sacramental priesthood and the Eucharist were again being denied. And of course Communion in the hand was beginning again. On page 57 of his book, Bishop Laise says Holland was, “a country where, already in 1965, Communion was given in the hand without complying with the express prohibition of Rome.” In 1966 the New Catechism, which became known as the notorious Dutch Catechism was published in Holland. Of this catechism Laise relates that “Soon afterwards, the Holy See demanded the correction of fourteen main points and forty-five minor ones.” Of the specific errors contained in this catechism Laise cites the following, “...in the Dutch Catechism, among other things; the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist was left in doubt... and an inadmissible explanation was given of transubstantiation... and any type of presence of Christ in the particles or fragments of the Host that become separated after the consecration was denied.” Bishop Laise sums it well saying, “If we take into account that this is the doctrinal climate in which Communion in the hand was introduced, we will understand why Paul VI [in Mysterium Fidei] was preoccupied with preventing the spread of dangerous 'false opinions about the Holy Eucharist,' sustained precisely by the promoters of the disobedience that introduced the rite.” The hierarchy of Holland fiercely resisted the Vatican's attempts to correct the many errors contained in the Dutch Catechism. This struggle went on for years and is well documented by Bishop Laise in his book. To think that the Catholic hierarchy of Holland and Belgium resisted these corrections from Rome, especially concerning core beliefs in the Eucharist and the priesthood, is simply mind numbing. We see history repeating itself. The protestants in their day rejected Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Eucharist. We see the same doctrines rejected in our times unbelievably by certain members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Belgium and Holland. Not coincidentally, both doctrinal climates saw the introduction of Communion in the hand. 33

Seeing this we can now appreciate the following quote made by the learned and well respected Fr. John Hardon [God rest his soul] at the Call to Holiness conference in Detroit, Michigan on November 1, 1997. Fr. Hardon who said â&#x20AC;&#x153;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.â&#x20AC;? Will you join in the fight to stop Communion in the hand? God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

Fr. John Hardon

CHAPTER 6

Episode Six: Communion in the Hand Begins Part I

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [11:03] video content of this chapter.

Hello, I’m Michael Voris. Did you know that the Holy Father tried to stop the practice of Communion in the hand? In this episode, you will gain inside knowledge of how this abuse started and how some bishops resisted the Pope when he ordered them to stop. Watch the preview from this episode of Sleight of Hand – Reception Deception. Join ChurchMilitant.TV as we aid the Church in Her fight against the powers of darkness by using the light of truth. To watch the full episode be sure to sign up for a premium account with ChurchMilitant.TV The link to do that is right outside this page. With a premium account you will have full access to all the premium content... literally hundreds of hours of philosophy, theology and apologetic courses giving you the knowledge you need to stand fast as a soldier of Christ... especially when faith in the Real Presence, is being attacked. See you on the premium channel.

I'm Michael Voris. God bless.

People often ask, “If the Pope doesn't like Communion in the hand, why doesn't he stop it?” Problem solved right? People assume the Pope can easily stop something if he wants to. So they think if he hasn't stopped Communion in the hand it is because he doesn't want to. The thing is, the pope DID try to stop Communion in the 36

hand in 1969 but failed miserably. This is because the bishops of the Netherlands and Germany simply did not obey the Holy Father. This is why the abuse continues to this day. In 1968, Pope Paul VI was experiencing a large scale rejection of his encyclical Humanae Vitae which spoke of the evils of contraception. The rejection was not only from the laity but by priests and bishops as well. The Canadian bishops' Winnipeg Statement of 1968 is an example of such rejection. This is part of the historical context of that era in which Paul VI would have to fight another battle. This one in the area of the liturgy. This liturgical battle saw Paul VI trying to stop Communion in the hand in Belgium and Germany where it had recently begun in defiance of Church law. Today, Communion in the hand is common place. People don't realize that it's only by way of special permission they are allowed to receive Holy Communion in their hand. Before 1968 this was not the case. Bishops and priests knew well back then that there was no such permission to dispense Holy Communion into the hands of the laity. December seventh 1968 the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, printed Pope Paul VI's chilling words, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council.â&#x20AC;? In 1962, the first document to come out of Vatican II, was, Sacrosanctum Concilium , the constitution on the liturgy. Paul VI, in 1964, appointed Archbishop Annibale Bugnini as secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy... or just Consilium for short. The implementation of this document on the liturgy was given to Bugnini's commission, the Consilium. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini

Archbishop Bugnini would go on to write a book titled, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 about his experiences of working in the Vatican during this time period. This book offers great insights into what happened regarding changes in the liturgy from an insiders point of view during this chaotic period of church history. From the beginning, Paul VI was firmly opposed to Communion in the hand as it was starting in defiance of Church law, as an abuse in Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France. This is shown by a letter written by the Consilium on October 12, 1965 to Cardinal Bernardus Alfrink who was head of the Conference of bishops in the Netherlands. Page 640 of Bugnini's book contains an excerpt from the letter to Cardinal Alfrink which reads, “The traditional way of distributing communion is to be maintained... The Holy Father... does not think it proper that the sacred host be distributed in the hand and then received by the faithful themselves in one or other fashion; and therefore he urgently asks the Conference to issue appropriate regulations so that the traditional way of receiving communion may be everywhere restored.” Bugnini goes on to say, “these and other reminders did not have any effect.”

Cardinal Bernardus Alfrink

Right here's the smoking gun. Here's the first, concrete, historical incident proving that the Pope did NOT want Communion in the hand to start. It shows he did order the bishops to stop this abuse at once and they refused to do so. The reason Communion in the hand is happening today is because these bishops disobeyed the Holy Father when he commanded them to stop this abuse. The only way to have stopped the abuse was to have removed these disobedient prelates from their dioceses. All other attempts would fall on deaf ears and hard hearts. The leadership style of Paul VI is the reason why no Church leaders were fired back then. He just didn't operate that way... unfortunately. But we can see

that Rome's attempt at stopping the abuse of Communion in the hand did not cease at this point but only increased. The prelates of the Netherlands, such as Cardinal Leo Suenens and Cardinal Bernardus Alfrink, said they were unable to stop Communion in the hand in their own dioceses. Not ABLE to stop the abuse in their own dioceses? All these prelates had to do was call in the priests who were disobedient and remove them from their parishes. What is so mystifyingly difficult about that? These Cardinals should've been called out for not taking charge of their dioceses. The Catholic Church had a longstanding liturgical law that said Communion must be given only on the tongue. So Alfrink and Suenens asked Rome for an indult (that is... special permission) which would allow Communion in the hand to be legalized. They did this instead of complying with the Holy Father's order to stop allowing Communion in the hand.

Cardinal Leo Suenens

On May 8, 1968, three years after telling the hierarchy of the Netherlands' to stop Communion in the hand, these same prelates asked again to receive the indult (or special permission to do it). Rome again said no... this time via the Sacred Congregation of Rites with the words, “non expedire”... in English... “It is not expedient.” But the hierarchy of the Netherlands and Germany kept up their insistent requests. On June 3, 1968 the Secretary of State wrote to the Episcopal Conference of the Netherlands saying, “His Holiness in effect considers that the bishops must be reminded of their responsibility so that they may prevent, with opportune norms, the inconveniences, and moderate the indiscriminate spread of this practice, of itself not contrary to doctrine, but, in practice, very disputable and dangerous.” Communion in the hand is not intrinsically evil, meaning not contrary to doctrine in itself. But it is called by Rome “disputable and dangerous” and thus highly undesirable. Soon after this, Paul VI directed the instruction Memoriale Domini

to be written which had much more to say about why Communion in the hand should not be allowed. But Paul VI, for some reason in a moment of weakness, BRIEFLY gave in to the request of these bishops for special permission to dispense Communion in the hand. A Concession was then granted to Germany on June 27 and to Belgium on July 3 of 1968 to administer Communion in the hand. It was done because the abuse seemingly could not be stopped and with the stipulation that the abuse not be allowed to spread. Keep these two points in mind when we analyze the Instruction Memoriale Domini written by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1969. On July 25, 1968, Paul VI, still vacillating about how best to handle the abuse, tells Bugnini to relate to the heads of these episcopal conferences who were in Rome at the time to, â&#x20AC;&#x153;temporarily suspend the publication and application of the indultâ&#x20AC;?. This in effect, would remove any special permission for giving Communion in the hand. The bishops knew that the Catholic Church considered the practice to be illegal. But at this point some things should be clear to us all. First, Communion in the hand was started in Germany, Belgium and Holland by a small group of prelates and clergy in defiance of church law. Why they did this God only knows. Second, this abuse was not taken lightly by Pope Paul VI who was deeply concerned that the abuse was going on and was continually involved on a very personal level trying to stop it. Third, the same small group of prelates and clergy that defied the law in starting the abuse also defied the authority of Holy Father who tried to stop the abuse from continuing. They merely declared that they were unable to stop it and asked permission to continue doing it. Why Rome would accept such an excuse from them... once again God only knows.

Paul VI could have been more of a top down authoritarian. In hindsight it seems that this would have been the only way to deal with such brazen disobedience. Leaders like Cardinal Alfrink and Cardinal Suenens could have been reassigned to positions of little influence. Jesus said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;He who is not with me is against me: and he that gathers not with me scatters.â&#x20AC;? And the sheep would soon be scattered in the Netherlands with Mass attendance plummeting. The debacle of Communion in the hand illustrates that a change in church practice can occur without being intended by the Council nor willed by the Pope. It proves that an abuse, when backed by enough cardinals, bishops and priests, can be sustained even in the face of opposition from the Holy Father. Pray for your present Holy Father. He is the leader of the Church Militant but he can only fight with the troops he has. God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

CHAPTER 7

Episode Seven: Communion in the Hand Begins Part II

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [13:04] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone and welcome back to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. As we’ve shown, Communion in the hand sprang up as an abuse against Church law during the latter 1960s in Belgium, Holland and Germany. Rome ordered this abuse be stopped but their admonitions were just ignored. Pope Paul VI, after futile attempts to stop the abuse, vacillated momentarily. He briefly gave in to the insistent requests from the Episcopal conferences of the Netherlands and Germany. He granted permission for them to continue distributing Communion in the hand. But before this exception actually went into effect, he changed his mind again and reversed himself. He wanted someway to stop this abuse. He did not want to legally white wash this abuse by granting them an exception to deviate from this law. His biggest concern was not the disobedience of the prelates. His major focus was our Lord being mishandled at Holy Communion. Five days after the suspension, the Consilium, a liturgical commission set up by Paul VI, sent out a memorandum to the Holy Father and recommended that, quote, “... Each episcopal conference should discuss the problem and come to a decision by a free and secret vote, the results of which should be sent back to the Consilium.” Later that year the Consilium met with various Vatican departments to discuss the issue. They recommended that “... the practice has started and is difficult to stop... The dangers: weakening of worship of the Eucharist; danger of profanations; yielding to a practice imposed from below.” Keep in mind that Rome viewed Communion in the hand in the Netherlands and Germany as “...a practice that is difficult to stop”. After the meetings the document Memoriale Domini was issued by the Congregation of Divine Worship. A very important phrase was used in this document - the phrase is “prevailing custom”. What the phrase means is if bishops of some country wanted to get permission to distribute Holy Communion in the hand the practice must already be wide spread and seen as a prevailing custom that is difficult to stop. Rome agreed that the views of the bishops should be solicited to help Rome better understand the issues. This would assist Rome in addressing the problem. 43

So the Consilium drafted a letter to be sent to all Latin rite conferences in the world. This letter was personally corrected and annotated by the pope himself. Archbishop Annebale Bugnini, the secretary of this commission, commented in his memoirs, “The variations introduced by the pope indicate the care and interest with which he had been following the whole matter.” Then this letter was sent out in 1968 to all the bishops' conferences of the Latin rite. The content of the letter was most telling. It referred to the manner in which communion was distributed to the faithful as one of Rome's most sensitive and pressing concerns at that time. It related that the Holy Father looked on the possible innovation of Communion in the hand with obvious apprehension. This letter contained the following reasons against offering an exception to distribute Communion in the hand. One of the reasons given was, “...this new practice, introduced here and there, is the work of a small number of priests and lay people, who are trying to impose their viewpoint on others and force the hand of those in authority. To approve the practice would be to encourage these persons who are NEVER satisfied with the laws of the Church.” We learn much about Paul VI from his use of the the word “never” here. The original draft used the word “not” as in “they are not satisfied”. Before this letter was sent out Paul VI personally changed this word 'not' to “never” as in “they are never satisfied”. So at least we know he was not naïve in regards to people... it would seem he was annoyed by dissident reformers. The letter went on to say, “The greatest thing to be feared is a lessening of respect for worship of the Eucharist.” It then spoke at length about the probable loss of fragments of the sacred species saying, “One must ask with anxiety whether the fragments of consecrated bread will always be gathered up and consumed with the full respect they deserve. If even now, when a communion plate is used, it is so easy for fragments to fall and to scatter, what will it be when the

particle is placed in the hands of the faithful, of whom not all will have the sensitivity and attention for gathering them up promptly?” Wow! Right here, is THE game changer in the whole debate for or against Communion in the hand. Right here the mind of the Church is saying loss of particles is a huge concern. With that, what else needs to be debated? Dominus Est... It is the Lord. No one has the right to treat our Lord in such a careless manner. If you don't believe... then you don't receive. It's as simple as that. But if you do receive, do so in such a way as to ensure no loss of particles. Like we said before, the only way to deal with brazen disobedience is to call out those responsible and relieve them of their positions of authority. In the 1960's, Rome, along with society, was changing in how they used their God given authority to direct and correct others. But this did not mean that Rome agreed with those who chose to disobey their directives. It simply meant those in authority were less effective in dealing with the ones who were staunchly disobedient.

Dominus Est – It Is the Lord!

A final concern expressed in Rome's letter to all 2,150 Latin rite bishops was that, “By yielding easily on this point... there is danger that the audacity of overly daring 'reformers' will be directed to other areas, which will bring irreparable harm to Eucharistic faith and worship.” In the last forty years since Rome gave in to the disobedience that fostered Communion in the hand, we have seen changes by innovators. These changes range from tabernacles moved off into corners to balloon masses going on. Thus we can safely say Rome's concerns in this regard was not an exaggeration by any means.

Paul VI wanted a ballot enclosed with this letter asking the following three questions, 1. “Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted? 2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop? 3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?” To each of these questions the majority of the bishops responded, “No”. We also learn from Archbishop Bugnini that Paul VI wanted this to be a secret ballot going so far as to ask, “How does it remain secret?” And further adding, “Who collects the ballots?” This seems to indicate that Paul VI was not naïve of real world politics. He was only soft hearted in dealing with it. After bishops returned their ballots and all episcopal conferences had voiced their concerns three options were noted: “One. Rome could close the door to every concession regarding Communion in the hand. The majority of bishops were FOR this solution. However a violent reaction in some areas where the abuse prevailed was feared along with extensive disobedience in these areas. Two. Rome could simply allow both forms of distribution, on the tongue and in the hand. But the majority of the bishops were AGAINST this. Three. Allowing the concession only where the abuse was already started and it was difficult to stop.” This third option was the one chosen. It would be included by the Congregation of Divine Worship in their instruction, Memoriale Domini.

Cardinal Benno Gut “Goot” was prefect of the Congregation of Rites, which became the Congregation of Divine Worship in 1969. This congregation was entrusted by Paul VI with writing the instruction Memoriale Domini. This was the document used by Paul VI to attempt to contain Communion in the hand. Two months after this instruction was issued, Cardinal “Goot” gave an interview where he said, “We hope that from now on, with the new regulations... this craze of experimentation will come to an end. Until now, the bishops were allowed to authorize experiments, but sometimes these went beyond Cardinal Benno Gut the limits of that authorization, and many priests simply did what "Goot" they pleased. In this case, what happened at times is that they forced their own way. These unauthorized initiatives quite often could not be stopped because they had spread too far. In his great goodness and wisdom, the Holy Father frequently gave in, and often times against his will.” To that end Paul VI some months prior had this to say, “We are referring above all to that mentality of many who receive with displeasure anything that comes from the ecclesiastical authorities or what is laid down by law. This is why in liturgical matters even the episcopal conferences, on their own initiative, sometimes end up going farther than what is right. It also happens that arbitrary experiments are conducted and rites are introduced which openly contradict the norms of the Church.” We see now the Church was absolutely against Communion in the hand. It was started by disobedient clergy experimenting with the liturgy. These same clergy were not willing to stop the abuse when repeatedly directed to do so by Rome. The prudential judgments of the pope of course are not infallible. This includes the choices Paul VI made when responding to these abuses. We are not here to defend the Holy Father's specific choices in this matter nor explain why he wasn't more of an authoritarian. Our task, as stated earlier, was to show that the pope did attempt to stop, or at least contain, Communion in the hand to a very small sector of the Church. 47

The meekness of his human nature, like another Moses, was pitted against the iron will of those who chose to disobey him. Seeing the heavy burden which Paul VI had to bare, let us not be too harsh in our judgment of him. God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

CHAPTER 8

Episode Eight: Memoriaie Domini Part I

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [12:34] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to this episode of Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. In 1968, Pope Paul VI wanted to stop the disobedient practice of Communion in the hand. So he charged a Vatican department to draft an instruction from him. In a hand written memo the pope related the following points to be included, “Let a summary report of the results of the consultation of the bishops be given which will confirm the mind of the Holy See regarding the inopportuneness of the distribution of Holy Communion in the hands of the faithful, indicating the reasons for it (liturgical, pastoral, religious, etc.). Therefore the present practice remains the norm.” But like with all things, there is a catch 22. Paul VI went on to write in the same memo, “If any episcopal conferences nonetheless think that they ought to allow this innovation, let them resort to the Holy See, and afterwards to adhere, if the requested permission is granted, to the norms and instructions that will accompany it.” Finally, the pope writes, “...it must be kept in mind that the practice – or abuse – of distributing communion in the hand, is already widespread in some countries, and that the bishops - for example, Cardinal Suenens, etc. - do not think it possible to suppress it” Paul VI acted on this idea, that where the abuse started it couldn't be stopped and therefore he wanted to contain it... much like a doctor would quarantine a plague for which he knew there was no cure. Maybe he realized those who allowed the abuse would not cooperate in stopping it. Why he didn't just call in Suenens and say, “suppress it or I will find someone else who can” God only knows. Unfortunately that was never his leadership style. The instruction Memoriale Domini from the Congregation of Divine Worship was personally called for by Paul VI and even crafted in its essence by him. After close review, he approved it. Therefore the sentiments it conveys are closely aligned with his. This instruction in section four says of Communion in the hand, “in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced, although the previously requested approval of the Apostolic See was lacking...” 50

Here the abuse is called out for what it is... a blatant disregard for the then current law as well as a disregard for those in authority. Section seven says, “Due to an ever-urgent sense of the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament and the humility necessary in order to receive It, the custom was established of the minister himself placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.” Here are two reasons given for Communion on the tongue. First, the reverence due the Blessed Sacrament and second, the humility of the communicant which is fostered by the act of being given communion and not of self-communicating. Section eight emphasizes the value of of “being fed” by saying of Communion on the tongue “This method of distributing holy Communion MUST BE RETAINED... not merely because it is rooted in many centuries of tradition, but especially because it expresses the reverence of the Christian faithful for the Eucharist.... it is PART of that preparation that is NEEDED for the MOST fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.” How much more clear can it get? Communion on the tongue Must Be RETAINED because it is more reverent and better prepares us to receive more graces every time we receive communion. People ask, if the pope doesn't like it, why doesn't he do something about it? He did. Right here. They ask, did the pope ever come out and mandate that we receive on the tongue. Answer... YES, right here! The fact that this has been hidden from most people and clergy is part of the Reception Deception eluded to in the title of this series. Even more deceiving is the appearance of the false position that the Church is neutral to, or ok with, Communion in the hand. Some people make a point to say Communion in the hand is not intrinsically evil. The pope didn't say it was intrinsically evil here but he did give many other reasons for it to be stopped... such as it being less reverent, it occasions a loss of particles, it is a less fruitful preparation for communion, etc. Others say if it is allowed by the Church, then it's ok. In this document the pope will allow some disobedient people to do it by making it legal... but only under certain circumstances. But in the same document he will give a list of reasons why they and others shouldn't practice this abuse. So, NO, just because it is allowed, or legal, doesn't mean it's OK. 51

This is the teaching of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ of whom Jesus said, “He who hears you hears me.” Is anyone listening?? Continuing to promote Communion on the tongue, the document in section 10 states that, “...this practice... ensures more effectively that Holy Communion is distributed with all due respect, decorum, and dignity, so that the danger of profanation of the Eucharistic species is prevented, in which in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually, so that finally the diligent care is preserved, which the Church always recommended regarding the fragments of the consecrated bread: What you have allowed to fall, think of it as though one of your own members were amputated.” Ok… so how many of us are willing to risk dropping the smallest particle of the host if by that act our own leg or arm would be chopped off ? That being the case, not a single person would risk it. So why are we so casual with the Body of Christ? It's because we don't believe it is the Lord... that's why. We are so casual in our practice because we don't have the faith to believe in The Mystery of Faith. Where is the safeguard ensuring no loss of particles when receiving Communion in the hand? The fact that you may or may not check for particles is beside the point. Very few do check. Do you care about Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament or don't you? If you do then start setting a good example by receiving Him on your tongue and further by promoting this practice to others. This is Mary's Son, the Son of God who we are talking about. Do you believe He is present under the Eucharistic veil? Do you care if small particles are dropped to the ground and He is then trampled upon and thus profaned? How could we as Catholics come to a time when we are so numb to these realities... When our faith is so weak and are hearts are so cold as to no longer care what happens to the One who said, “I will be with you all days even unto the consummation.” He is here with us wherever the Eucharistic veil is present. He is here under the appearance of bread and wine. We must regain our faith in order to rekindle our Charity. Section 12 relating the dangers associated with Communion in the hand says, “A change in a matter of such importance, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition... can also bring certain dangers, which are feared to arise from the new manner of

administering Holy Communion: that of arriving at a lessening of reverence for the august Sacrament of the altar, or of profanation of the Sacrament, or of adulterating true doctrine.” People today ask why we make such a big deal out of it. Well, Rome here is saying it is a big deal... calling it “a matter of such importance.” Rome brings up again a loss of reverence and profanation, which is loss of particles. People stop going to mass because they stop believing that Jesus is there. They stop believing that Jesus is there because they lose reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. They lose reverence because they treat him in a casual and careless manner. The loss of true belief leads them to have false notions about the Eucharist as every survey shows. It's a big deal because people aren't having a fruitful reception of Holy Communion and are thus deprived of the graces they need to stay on the narrow path of life. The Pope is connecting all these problems directly to Communion in the hand. Section fourteen speaks of the response by bishops who were polled about a change from Communion on the tongue to Communion in the hand. It states, “From the returns it is obvious that a large majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should remain unchanged and that if it were changed, it would be offensive to the sensibilities and the spirituality of these bishops and of the majority of the faithful.” Some people say that it wouldn't hurt their faith at all. Maybe not, but in Christian charity we are called not only to think of ourselves but others as well whose faith may be more easily hurt. Section fifteen, like section eight, relates that Communion on the tongue should not be changed saying, “... in view of the seriousness of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has felt that the time-honored way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful SHOULD NOT BE changed.” In Section sixteen, Memoriale Domini uses extremely clear and strongly worded language when exhorting that all keep the rite of Communion on the tongue saying, “The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and faithful to submit diligently to the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed, in accordance with both the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, and the form of the rite currently in use in the Sacred Liturgy, and out of the common good of the Church.” 53

So here is the Church saying the matter of placing the host into the hands of laity is serious. Here is the Church saying straight out, don't practice Communion in the hand. Here is the Church giving the many reasons for Her decision. If you could ask Paul VI what was the biggest mistake of his pontificate... He'd probably say, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Making an exception at the end of Memoriale Domini for disobedient people to legally receive Communion in the handâ&#x20AC;?. Stay tuned next week as we look at the unfortunate ending to Memoriale Domini. We will see how this loophole would be exploited by those who practiced Sleight of Hand. God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

CHAPTER 9

Episode 9: Memoriale Domini Part II

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [09:21] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. Pope Paul VI ordered that a document be written to reign in the illegal practice of Communion in the hand. The document was titled Memoriale Domini, and was full of reasons why everyone should receive our Lord's Sacred Body directly on their Tongue and not in their hand. You're probably asking yourself... If the Holy See commanded this in 1969, why haven't I heard about it? And more importantly... How is it that Communion in the hand spread so fast if just the opposite was intended by Rome?

Pope Paul VI

Well, the Holy Father, like any leader, has to fight with the troops he has. Sometimes the bishops in authority under him don't follow his lead. They don't always do what they're supposed to for one reason or another. And sometimes their actions show their apostolic lineage goes back to the first bishop to turn traitor, Judas Iscariot. The bishops should have promoted these directives from Rome regarding the reception of Holy Communion. Sad to say, they failed the Holy Father in this important mission he entrusted to them. This is shown by how few laity and clergy actually know the mind of the Church in this regard. People were lead to believe Communion in the hand was either no big deal or that it was preferred by the Church. Some lost faith in the Eucharist as they saw the Sacred Species treated like common bread... and they left the Church because of it. Some lost faith in the Church as they saw Her not protect Jesus in the Eucharist and they left because of it. For the New Evangelization to bring these people back into the Church, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s necessary to retrace the steps, which led many of these former Catholics away 56

from the Church. The abuse of Communion in the hand must be called out for what it is. And Paul VI needs to be shown as the staunch promoter of Communion on the tongue that he was. We see it’s the bishops who are to blame for the spread of Communion in the hand and not Vatican II nor the Popes. The teaching in Memoriale Domini wasn’t preached by the bishops. Instead we received a spun version of how Communion in the hand was acceptable or even preferred by the Church. This is part of that Reception Deception eluded to in the title of this show Various leaders in the Church allowed children to be taught to receive our Lord's body in their hands at first Holy Communion. The same leaders were often silent about the instruction Memoriale Domini and its points. They did little to stem the tide as Communion in the hand became commonplace in their own dioceses. If we had followed the intentions of Pope Paul VI as they were expressed in Memoriale Domini, Communion in the hand would not be a problem today. There would be no large-scale defections from the Church due to loss of faith in the Eucharist .... Nor due to loss of faith in the Church as the protector of Jesus in the Eucharist. Papal critics quickly point out, Paul VI allowed a “disobedience clause” at the end of Memoriale Domini. They say this catch 22 paved the way for Communion in the hand to spread. They speak as if the intended purpose of this document was to legalize this abuse. This concession reads, “Where contrary usage, that of placing Holy Communion in the hand, ALREADY prevails... in THESE SPECIFIC CASES, the Episcopal Conferences after a prudent study... the decisions are to be made by a two-thirds majority and by a secret vote. They should present them to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, accompanied by a careful explanation of the reasons by which they were led to making them. The Holy See will examine each case carefully....” [Congregation Of Divine Worship Memoriale Domini , par 17,18] This last section of the document, by far the smallest section, receives all the headlines from the few people who discuss it. But this section was written only for a small group of people at that time in the Church... specifically those, “Where... Communion in the hand ALREADY prevails.” This meant only Holland, Belgium, 57

Germany and France. These were the only locations where disobedient bishops were seeking to have the abuse legitimized after they had started the abuse and were refusing to stop the practice as Rome ordered. The clause speaks not merely in the present tense “where contrary usage prevails”, as if it may apply to anyone in the future. No, it specifically says, “where contrary usage ALREADY prevails” anchoring it to what had already occurred at the time of this document. It seems reasonable that this was not an “open ended” condition to be applied to whoever may, by disobedience, start the abuse in the future. No, this is a narrow interpretation, which agrees with the rest of the document. It explicitly orders all other people to practice only Communion on the tongue from that time on forward. The whole rest of the document was meant for everyone else in the Church. Pope Paul VI never imagined the rest of the world would use this instruction as the means to acquire the permission to distribute Communion in the hand. In his mind this document would quarantine the abuse to the few countries where it had already been illegally introduced such as the Netherlands and Germany. We can identify many rode blocks the pope put in this document to stop Communion in the hand from spreading. First. He polled all the bishops and posted the results... specifically that the majority of bishops were against it. Second. More than once he ordered that Communion on the tongue must be retained. No more experimenting with the liturgy would be allowed in this regard. Therefore no other conferences were supposed to become affected by this abuse or seek permission to legalize it. Third. Only those places where it is ALREADY a prevailing custom even have the possibility to vote to petition the Holy See for the exception. If bishops could stop the abuse then they were directed to do so by the Holy See.

Fourth. For the episcopal conference of a country to petition Rome they had to have a two-thirds majority vote in this regard and it had to be by a secret ballot at their meeting. Keep these two points in mind when we take a look back to 1977 at what happened with our own bishops meeting in America. Fifth. Even after all that Rome still has to give approval and could say no. Sixth. The document also speaks of conditions which would accompany any approval by Rome. These conditions, seven to be exact, were part of any future indult granted. If these points were followed in this last section then few parts of the world would have Communion in the hand being practiced today. Paul VI thought these various roadblocks would contain the abuse to those Catholics in the Netherlands and Germany where disobedience already prevailed. Little did he realize that many other bishopsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; conferences would ignore his instructions and instead exploit his very narrow exception. Certain conferences would deliberately skip the necessary conditions to get Rome's permission. This is what is meant by Sleight of Hand techniques. The actions of these bishops would eventually cause many defections from the Church. People seeing the Eucharist handled so carelessly would come to lose faith in the Real Presence. And what many people, including many bishops and priests of today are unaware of is that the American bishops of the time used deception to promote the practice of reception of Holy Communion in the hand. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll focus on that in our next episode. God love you. I'm Michael Voris

C H A P T E R 10

Episode 10: NCCB Meeting

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [15:53] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. The American bishops today are called the United States Conference Catholic of Bishops or USCCB. Before 2001 their group went under the collective title of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops or NCCB for short. We are going to be using the term NCCB a lot in this show. We want you to know that it is the old name for the USCCB. The theme of our show, sleight of hand or a deception, alludes to the fact that certain leaders, running the NCCB in the 1970's, used deceptive tactics at their 1977 meeting in Chicago. This deception would exploit a very narrow exception granted by Pope Paul to a small number of European countries to distribute Holy Communion in the hand. That exception was never intended for the United States or any other countries. The American Bishops were trying to get an indult (a type of written permission, an exception to the rule) from Rome which would legalize the practice of Communion in the hand in the U.S. Up until this 1977 meeting, the law of the Church as applied in the United States said Holy Communion could only be distributed on the tongue of communicants. Why these particular bishops wanted the practice legalized, God only knows. It was not desired by the American laity nor by the majority of bishops as polls of the day show. The small group of bishops had great influence on the actions of the NCCB and did orchestrate an ATTEMPT by the NCCB to get permission from Rome. There are very strong reasons to believe that the NCCB, at their meeting in Chicago May 3, 1977, did not meet the necessary conditions set by Rome to ask Rome for permission to distribute Holy Communion in the hand.

And this document is the smoking gun exposing the all the chicanery and behind the scenes machinations used by liberal bishops to force the issue of Communion in the hand in America. Very few Catholics know this history. And since decades have gone by where we have been told that receiving in the hand is perfectly fine, nobody is guilty of any sin in this regard. However, once you know something is wrong you are morally obliged to correct your actions. Now that you know reception of Holy Communion in the hand began in a climate of sin and disobedience you should cease the practice immediately. But apparently people receiving Holy Communion in the hand was not a source of great sadness for the wildly liberal bishops who ruled the church in America with an iron fist in the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. This is proven by the minutes of the NCCB meeting of May 3-5, 1977 which ChurchMilitant.TV has obtained. As we said, this is THE smoking gun which proves that receiving Communion in the hand in America should never have come into practice. We obtained the minutes of this meeting from the archives at Notre Dame where they were deeply buried for decades. ChurchMilitant.TV dug and dug and uncovered this document which was never really intended to be seen by the average Catholic. It is stamped confidential as you can see. Due to privacy issues stated by Notre Dame Archives, direct quotes can not be made but our paraphrases will follow very closely those found in the minutes. In addition we are not even allowed to show someone this document in person if they came by the studio and asked to see it. We are not allowed to show any of the content up close on air. But if you would like to verify our findings you can obtain a copy of these same minutes from Notre Dame Archives for just a $ 9 fee. The NCCB meeting starts with the presentation of the agenda shown on page five of the minutes. This is the third year in a row the issue of Communion in the hand comes up at the NCCB meeting for the bishops to discuss, and vote on their 62

decision whether or not to petition Rome for permission to distribute Communion in the hand. On page five and six, the minutes show that Bishop Romeo Blanchette from Joliet Illinois tried to stop Communion in the hand from being on the agenda by acting quickly at the start of the meeting with five other bishops. He wrote up a proposed amendment and gave it to his fellow bishops. He was asking for a written vote by his fellow bishops if Communion in the hand was a prevailing custom in America. This was one of the preconditions necessary for any nations bishops to ask for an exception. Bishop Blanchette made the motion that this all be done by written ballot.

Bishop Romeo Blanchette

The Chairman said that would be done as there were five bishops who had seconded Blanchetteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s motion. You will understand why Bishop Blanchette wanted everything in writing. Heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d done his homework. He knew Rome required that Communion in the hand must already be a prevailing custom as a condition before Rome would even consider granting permission. As it was not a prevailing custom at that time in the U.S., and Blanchette had covered all legal bases at the meeting, then this should have been the end of the discussion. But now watch the Bernadine Machine roll over him and his motion effortlessly. As documented on page six of the minutes, Bishop William McManus of Fort Wayne - South 63

Bishop William McManus

Bend stood up and questioned whether Blanchette's motion was in order and if it was ruled in order, how could that ruling be overruled. And who did he ask? Non other than Archbishop Joseph Bernadine who was conveniently the chairman. Archbishop Bernadine ruled the motion to be in order. But he quickly went on to explain how the assembled bishops could overrule him and thus prevent Blanchetteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s motion from being voted on. In other words he coached the supporters of Holy Communion in the hand how to use a parliamentary procedure to vote down opposition. They followed his not so subtle cues and lead and with a voice vote, voted it down. Archbishop

What this did, was clear the decks to petition Joseph Bernadine Rome for permission to begin distributing Holy Communion in the hand in the United States by use of a clever trick to keep Rome from knowing that one of its requirements to make the request in the first place had not been fulfilled. This is just one example of what people meant by the 'Bernadine Machine' and what Argentinian Bishop Rodolofo Laise meant by 'pressure mechanisms, which operate inside the Church'. And you can also see why Bishop Blanchette did his homework and came prepared for battle. He knew he was up against the whole Bernadine Machine but he still lost. Page thirty-one of the minutes pertains to the next day. They show Cardinal John Carberry of St. Louis standing up and saying that Rome had 64

Bishop Rodolofo Laise

ordered in 1969 that Communion on the tongue be maintained and not changed. He also brought up a picture in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vaticanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newspaper, which people said was the Pope giving Communion in the hand but was really him just giving a rosary. We note that such false media reporting still goes on today. He went on in the minutes to say that with Communion in the hand there was great danger of irreverence. More importantly, page thirty one of the minutes goes on to show that Cardinal John Carberry is on record saying there is an extraordinary amount of mail received by the bishops from people opposed to the introduction of Communion in the hand. He said straight out there was no mandate from the laity for this practice. So... how is it a prevailing custom?

Cardinal Carberry

This is hard proof Communion in the hand was not a prevailing custom in the U.S as required by Rome in order to obtain the necessary permission. Finally on page thirty-three of the minutes it is revealed that Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia stood up and protested the previous dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parliamentary maneuvering to side step the Vaticanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rules. According to the minutes, he was deeply concerned that a new approach was beginning whereby bishops could institutionalize abuse.

Cardinal Krol

But most importantly page thirty-three of the minutes reveal that then Archbishop Bernadine admitted that he DID NOT get the two-thirds vote required by the Vatican to petition Rome to be able to distribute Communion in the hand. 65

But does that stop the Bernadine Machine? Heck No! Bernadine simply said the matter could not be concluded until the absent bishops were polled. WHAT?? Polling absent bishops who were not part of the discussion? Who were they? Who would poll them? How would the questions to them be phrased? Who would count the votes? According to canon law the vote must be done by a secret ballot for validity. As to the alleged private balloting conducted by Bernadine after the meeting of bishops who were not at the meeting, many canon lawyers agree that this type of activity doesn't pass muster when in regards to canon law. So, what did Bernadine do? As chairman, he coached allied bishops how to kill a motion that would have prevented the vote from happening. That cleared the way for the vote to happen. Failing the required two-thirds majority, that he knew he was not going to get, he pulled out his trump card and purported to have gotten the necessary votes to reach a two-thirds majority. In other words he stuffed the ballot box. And these extra votes that supposedly came in, according to Fr. John Hardon, were gotten from retired bishops and bishops on their death beds. And remember these bishops were not at the meeting and were not part of the discussion. They didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the option as required by canon law to cast their votes in secret. Bernadine and his crony bishops sent their trumped up request to Rome and without realizing it was bogus, Rome granted permission. In short, Bernadine, with the help of other liberal bishops steam rolled through the process and imposed Holy Communion in the hand on the Church in the United States. And here is how this happened. A very narrow 66

Fr. John Hardon

exception was granted by Rome if certain conditions were met. Here is the official wording that Rome required. “Where contrary usage, that of placing holy Communion in the hand, ALREADY prevails... in THESE SPECIFIC CASES, the Episcopal Conferences after a prudent study... the decisions are to be made by a two-thirds majority and by a secret vote. They should present them to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, accompanied by a careful explanation of the reasons by which they were led to making them. The Holy See will examine each case carefully....” Consider these three points for 1969. One. Polls show almost no one wanted communion in the hand. Two. No one was doing it. Three. The Vatican had just issued a document that year saying don’t do it. So if that was the case in 1969, how was it that within a few years, the practice had become so wide spread in the United States? One answer to that question comes from the insights of an Argentinean bishop Rodolpho Laise who fought this same battle with his fellow bishops in 1996. He spoke of what he called “pressure mechanisms that operate inside the Church which are capable of reversing papal decisions.” This should not come as a surprise. An example of this tactic was presented in the novel and movie Man For All Seasons about St. Thomas More. Now by way of just a little background detail… In the mid 1970's one such “pressure mechanism” involving the Church in the United States was commonly called the “Bernadine Machine” named after Cardinal Bernadine who was president of the NCCB from 1974 to 1977. During his tenure the decision to petition Rome for permission to distribute Communion in the hand was brought up and voted down each of these three years at their annual NCCB meeting including the third year that is the year these minutes are from. 67

Undeterred, Bernadine used devious tactics to railroad the process. All of this raises the very troubling question that every Sunday millions of American Catholics go to mass and receive Holy Communion in their hands based on a lie. As a final exclamation point to all this chicanery here is what you would have to believe. The meeting ended May 5th. Within a span of a little over a month Bernadine supposedly conducted all his illegal balloting at the death beds of dying bishops, got enough votes from them to tip the scales in his favor, collated all the non secret illegal ballots, prepared all the documentation, send it off to the Vatican, have it undergo all the necessary examinations and reviews through the various channels as required, have a final verdict rendered in Rome and then wait to receive that verdict all in the space of slightly over a month. All by June 17th, 1977, which is when, Communion in the hand officially came out of the closet in the U.S. God love you, I’m Michael Voris Note: If you would like to obtain your own copy of the NCCB minutes mentioned in this segment email archives@nd.edu and request a copy of: Minutes of the Nineteenth General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops May 3-5, 1977. In short they will email you a link and a order code to use to make the purchase. Or, go to http://archives.nd.edu/order.html , enter order code; jrs/NCCB and total cost enter $9, and the click the I agree button.

C H A P T E R 11

Episode 11: Condtions For Permission

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [10:08] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris. Communion in the Hand came to America in 1977. Rome granted permission after American bishops applied for it. Now, nearly forty years later questions are being raised whether deceitful tactics were used by the head of the American bishops, Cardinal Joseph Bernadine, in order to get that permission. How that permission was obtained is one issue. But there is another issue in some ways even more troubling. The issue here is this – Rome commands that when special permission is given, it is given conditionally. There are, in this case, seven conditions and all must be met. The canonical Latin phrase referring to these seven conditions is, “Sine Qua non”... meaning “Without which, nothing”... This phrase means these conditions must be met in practice as the related permission hinges upon them being kept or not. Here is what Rome tells bishops conferences, “In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful... The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms MUST therefore be respected.” Congregation for Divine Worship, En reponse, Notitiae 5, 1969, pp 351-353) [http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm] While there are seven... we will focus on two. The first one which is 'norm' three says, “The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand... MUST also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord's body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.”

As an important aside… we have covered lots of times how official texts are poorly translated. This norm is no exception. The original document was left in French when officially recorded by the Church. There is a common mistranslation of this third condition, from the French original text that makes it no longer a condition but rather a statement saying in effect that Communion in the hand, “... WILL also increase each one's faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of Our Lord” Austin Flannery, Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, p.153 A South American bishop, versed in these languages and with access to the official documents took note of this mistranslation in his research saying, “Point 3 of the letter is a CONDITION for receiving Communion in the hand, not an ADVANTAGE that this brings of itself.” Bishop Laise, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, p. 66 Pope Paul VI was adamant on this point as well. In 1968, he told the worlds bishops that, “The greatest thing to be feared is a lessening of respect for worship of the Eucharist.” In the 1980 Apostolic Exhortation Dominicae Cenae, Saint John Paul II, in section 11 said, “In some countries the practice of receiving communion in the hand has been introduced... However, cases of deplorable LACK of respect toward the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the PASTORS of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist...” be feared is a lessening of respect for worship of the Eucharist.” Consilium, Letter to Bishops, 1968, point 3. [Bishop Laise, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, p.80]

Overwhelming statistics from every liturgical poll taken in the last forty years show that people are rapidly losing faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Some people may say Communion in the hand doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t change anyone's faith in the Blessed Sacrament. But NOBODY says it increases peoples' faith in the Eucharist. Condition three says, the practice MUST INCREASE people's faith in the Real Presence. If this condition is not met then permission for Communion in the hand is not allowed in practice. Some priests say they are morally certain from pastoral experience that the practice of Communion in the hand is not increasing peoples' faith. Therefore they say they are morally certain they are not keeping this third condition and therefore do not have permission to distribute Communion in the hand. So now... if you are a priest and you have serious doubts whether your distribution of Holy Communion in the hand is not increasing your peoples' faith in the Real Presence, then you've got some serious reflecting to do. The Church commands that this practice only be allowed if faith in the Real Presence is increased. If you greatly suspect this is not happening, then you are now in a moral dilemma. So for a priest to distribute Communion in the hand without due authorization is to be disobedient to the universal law of the Church. Church law still stipulates Holy Communion must be distributed on the tongue unless otherwise authorized. However, there is another condition that each priest must consider. Norm five says, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands...â&#x20AC;?

Pope Paul VI, spoke to this also saying, “One must ask with anxiety whether the fragments of consecrated bread will always be gathered up and consumed with the full respect they deserve. If even now, when a communion plate is used, it is so easy for fragments to fall and to scatter, what will it be when the particle is placed in the hands of the faithful, of whom not all will have the sensitivity and attention for gathering them up promptly?” Consilium, Letter to Bishops, 1968, point 4. [Bishop Laise, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, pp.80-81] Right here the Pope is saying loss of particles of the Blessed Sacrament is a huge concern if distributing Communion in the hand. The Vatican followed up on this three years later saying, “On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.” So where is the “careful concern and caution about particles that might fall”? Seldom if ever do you see either priest or laity checking for particles that might be clinging to their hands. Some insightful pastors say from pastoral experience of handling the host, they are morally certain there will be some loss of particles of the hosts due to distributing Communion into the hands of the multitudes at Mass. Thus they’re morally certain that at any given Mass they aren't keeping condition five. So they do not have permission to distribute Communion in the hand. Once again the practice without authorization is an abuse against universal Church law which is a sin of disobedience... a breaking of the fourth commandment. But to do something you are morally certain would result in particles of the Eucharist falling to the ground where they would certainly be trampled upon would also be a sacrilege... a breaking of the first commandment... Not something to be taken lightly. Speaking to this very topic, the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship (or CDW) said as recently as 2004, “If there is a RISK of profanation, then Holy 73

Communion SHOULD NOT be given in the hand to the faithful.” “If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.” Congregation of Divine Worship, Redemeptionis Sacramentum, 2004, norm 92. This recent statement by the way is the current liturgical norm in force. The Holy Father and the CDW have warned many times there is a risk of profanation of the Eucharist when distributing Communion in the hand. It's time that priests see this risk for what it is and stop dispensing Communion in the hand. As for our opinion of what Holy Mother Church ought to do in this regard we turn to Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith who said, “I think it is now time to evaluate carefully the practice of Communion in the hand and, if necessary, to ABANDON what was actually never called for in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium nor by the Council Fathers but was, in fact, “accepted” after it was introduced as an abuse in some countries.”Please join us as we pray for this intention. God love you. I'm Michael Voris.

Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith

C H A P T E R 12

Episode 12: Every Particle is Precious

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [10:11] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception. I'm your host, Michael Voris.

Practically every Catholic today who goes to communion receives it in the hand. If you are one of them you really shouldn't. Here is why. In 2004 the Vatican said, “If there is a RISK of profanation, then Holy Communion SHOULD NOT be given in the hand to the faithful.” Profanation is loss of particles. Loss of particles of the Eucharist is a sacrilege because every particle is really truly and substantially the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But why this emphasis on particles? What’s the big deal if a few fragments of the consecrated host are lost here or there? It is precisely, that every particle is precious. This is because Jesus Christ is present whole and entire, Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the smallest fragment of the host after it is consecrated. This is the Mystery of Faith. The focus of this episode is to give tangible evidence to this Catholic teaching by presenting real, ongoing Eucharistic Miracles. Throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has been blessed with countless miracles. The incorruptible bodies of the saints … Marian apparitions … miraculous healings … the list goes on. There are also some very special miracles that have occurred involving Holy Communion. They’re called Eucharistic Miracles. They seem to occur in places where there’s doubt in the Real Presence, or calling attention to a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, and still other times they simply brought belief to a non-believer. The church has stamped its seal of approval on over one hundred of these kinds of miracles during Her history.

The first one we’ll look at is the miracle that took place in the small village of Bois-Seigneur-Isaac (bwah-see-NIER ee-ZAK), near Brussels in Belgium. It occurred on the Tuesday before Pentecost (June 5) in 1405. Our Lord appeared several times to a man named John of Huldenberg. His sacred wounds were visible during these visions. Only on the third apparition did our Savior actually talk. He told John, “Go into the Chapel of Isaac, you will find Me there.” http://www.therealpresence.org/ eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Boisseigneurisaac.pdf While these visions were occurring, a parish priest by the name of Father Peter Ost heard a voice telling him to offer the Mass of the Holy Cross in the Chapel of Isaac. The priest obeyed, and the next day he asked the faithful to help at Mass at the Chapel of Isaac. John of Huldenberg was there. Father Ost began the Mass, unfolding the corporal and spotted a Particle of the large Host that had been consecrated that past Tuesday. Father Ost thought he would just consume the Host, but it stuck to the corporal and actually began to Bleed. The priest became noticeably pale and John, who saw it all happen, consoled him saying, “Do not fear, this marvel comes from God” and shared his visions with Father. For four consecutive days, until the Tuesday after Pentecost, the Blood continued to flow. It stained the entire corporal. The blood eventually coagulated and dried up. The local Bishop was told what happened … and he decided to investigate the matter. The blood stains on the corporal couldn’t be removed no matter what they tried. Several years later after gathering testimonies and careful deliberation, the Bishop granted an indulgence to those visiting the chapel featuring the relic… and shortly after began the tradition of having Eucharistic processions and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament… a tradition that continues to this day. 77

So what’s proved by a small particle of the host bleeding? Well, for starters, that the Real Presence exists in the fragments, not just in the full host. Therefore, every fragment is precious and should not be overlooked as unimportant. The next instance we’ll look at was actually the FIRST Eucharistic Miracle, happening over 700 years before the one in Belgium, and it’s also the most wellknown Eucharistic Miracle in the church. Back in the year 700, a Basilian monk was celebrating Holy Mass in the city of Lanciano, Italy. Unfortunately, the monk was suffering from doubts about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. As the doubting monk recited the words of consecration, the host turned into VISIBLE FLESH, and the wine turned into VISIBLE BLOOD! The blood then split into five separate globules … perhaps drawing to mind the five wounds of Christ. What’s even more amazing… whether the particles were weighed together or separately, they weighed the exact same … 15.85 grams. This points to the reality that EACH PARTICLE, whether together or individually … contains our Lord completely, body, blood soul & divinity really truly and substantially. We’ll leave you with one last example … a purported miracle that took place back in 1996 in Buenos Aires … involving Our Holy Father, Pope Francis … then Archbishop Bergoglio.We say “purported” because it does not appear to have been fully approved just yet. On August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet was saying Holy Mass at a Catholic 78

church in Buenos Aires. As he was finishing distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded host on a candleholder at the back of the church. Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host, and placed it in a container of water and put it away in the tabernacle since he couldn’t consume it at the time. Eight days later, on August 26th, he opened the tabernacle and saw the host had turned into a bloody substance. Eleven days after that, Archbishop Bergoglio was informed and he instructed the priest to have someone take photos to document the occurrence. The photographs show that the Eucharist had GROWN SUBSTANTIALLY in size. Several years passed, and the situation was still kept secret. Since the Eucharist hadn’t decomposed, Archbishop Bergoglio decided to have it tested.

August 18, 1996, a consecrated Host becomes flesh and blood

It was taken to New York for analysis, but the scientists were not told where it came from. One of the scientists had determined that it WAS, in fact, made of real flesh and blood containing human DNA. But he got even more specific than that. The scientist said that it came from the left ventricle… the part of the heart responsible for pumping blood to the rest of the body. He commented that the tissue was inflamed, and he found a large amount of white blood cells … which shows the heart was alive when the sample was taken, since white blood cells cannot live outside a living organism.

And the white blood cells had penetrated the tissue … showing the heart had been under extreme stress … as if the person had been beaten severely in their chest. When the scientist was told where the specimen came from and how long it had been sitting … he responded saying, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.” According to Catholic Dogma, the consecrated host is living human flesh and blood.... the body and blood of Christ. The fact is we typically don't see the flesh and blood of Jesus as it truly is in the Eucharist. Instead the real flesh and blood is hidden under the appearances of bread and wine. And when you think about, this is even more miraculous than seeing the flesh and blood as it really is. So what’s at every mass is the flesh and blood of Christ. The question should be, why don't we see the Host for what it actually is all the time? Why only with the Eucharistic miracles do we see what the Church teaches us is always there? Something to contemplate the next time you are receiving Christ's body in Holy Communion. If we ever needed help believing that Our Lord is really present in every particle of the Eucharist, these three examples should certainly awaken our faith. Now you can see why Holy Mother Church urges great care be taken during Holy Communion so that no fragment of the host be lost. This is why Communion in the hand is so precarious as it allows so easily for the loss of fragments. It all comes down to the reality that Every particle is Precious. God love you. I'm Michael Voris. 80

C H A P T E R 13

Episode 13: Bishop Schneider

If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a Premium Member on ChurchMilitant.com click on this Premium members link to view the [09:35] video content of this chapter.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to Sleight of Hand Reception Deception.

I'm your host, Michael Voris.

We draw your attention to Bishop Athanasius Schneider who is traveling around the world to promote a right understanding and a right reception of the Eucharist of Whom he says, “Dominus Est... It is the Lord.” Once you know that the Eucharist is Jesus, then everything else falls into place... such as how we ought to reverently receive the King of kings... by having the priest place HIM directly on our tongue with no possibility for loss of sacred particles.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a beautiful hymn “Sacris Solemniis” to honor the Blessed Sacrament. Take a listen.

AUDIO 13.1 Sacris Solemniis

In it we hear the lyric “Lord, visit us to the extent we venerate you!” There’s an interesting correlation here…that God would be with us more if we would just give Him the proper reverence. So how exactly do we do that? One solution has been put forth by Bishop Athanasius Schneider who is heralding a return to the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. His efforts to make this change will be the focus of our episode today.

Bishop Schneider, who heads the Archdiocese of Astana in Kazakhstan in the former Soviet Union,, made a bit of a splash back in 2008. That’s when his stance on this most important topic was first revealed in an article published in L’Osservatore Romano… the Vatican’s daily newspaper. Kazakhstan In the article, his Excellency expressed a desire to return to the ancient practice of kneeling while receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.

This is far different than the current widespread practice of standing and receiving in the hand. This article was a synopsis of his short book Dominus Est – It is the Lord! Whether it’s simply a coincidence or something more, it is interesting to note that in 2008, Pope Benedict XVI returned to the policy of receiving kneeling and on the tongue at the Vatican … the same year as Dominus Est was released. Bishop Schneider had some rather significant figures involved with the book. Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, who was the Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments at the time, wrote the preface. Cardinal Arinze, the prefect emeritus of the congregation we just mentioned … who we should also say was widely considered a papal candidate in the past two elections… gave the book his endorsement. There’s also a record of a seminar Bishop Schneider gave in Hong Kong in December 2013 which is a great summary of the points of why we should revert back to Communion kneeling and on the tongue. The notes from this seminar can easily be found online. (We have attached a link here.) Throughout this program we’ll go back and forth between the two works, highlighting the most important points.

In Dominus Est, Bishop Schneider starts off by recounting how he developed some of his deep reverence for the blessed sacrament. It was due to the example given him by his mother, his grandfather’s sister, and a fellow parishioner. The example of how important the Eucharist was to these three individuals made a profound impact on him. They lived during the time of communism in the Soviet Union, and rarely received the sacraments because religion was forbidden... it was illegal. The sacrifice and hardship they made to receive the Eucharist resulted in It being all the more precious to them. The Catholic church was forced to go underground during their lifetime. While there’s not enough time to go into all of the powerful stories here, in summary…we essentially learn how these brave “Eucharistic women” as he calls them, carried on the faith to those around them. They held prayer meetings, made spiritual communions when there was no sacrament available… which was most of the time… and when an underground priest was able to leave them with the Holy Eucharist for adoration, they treated Our Lord with the greatest reverence. After a bit of personal background, Bishop Schneider shares some of the history of how Communion on the tongue developed... that’s his next topic in the book. He writes that the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament directly into the mouth actually began before the sixth century which is pointed out in a document written by St. Gregory the Great. In the 8th century, there is evidence that the Occidental and Oriental churches were practicing communion directly into the mouth… showing that it is not simply a common food. The devoted bishop goes on to say that the gesture of kneeling “symbolizes the attitude of humility and the spirit of spiritual infancy, which Jesus himself requires from all who want to receive the kingdom of God.”

Then in the Middle Ages, the faithful began to receive Our Lord kneeling as an outward expression of adoration, and we find proof of this in one of St. Columban’s works. To those who say Communion in the hand was a common practice in the early Church, we turn to St. Basil, who writes in the fourth century, “If one feels he should in times of persecution, in the absence of a priest or deacon, receive Communion by his own hand... this certainly shows no grave immoderation; for long custom allows this in such cases... solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest... receive from their own hands.”

Saint Columban

So St. Basil, a Father and Doctor of the Church, who lived in the days of the early Church calls Communion in the hand a “Grave Immoderation” unless in times of persecution or for hermits in the wilderness. So how can Communion in the hand be construed as a common everyday occurrence in the early Church? ... it wasn’t. Bishop Schneider makes the point that Communion in the hand, to the extent it was practiced in the ancient church, was NOT how we know it today. We learn from his Excellency that it WAS received in the hand, but a hand that was covered by a white glove, and then the host was eaten off the hand instead of picked up with your fingers and put in your own mouth. This ensured that only consecrated hands touched the consecrated bread. After that, great care was taken so any particles left on the glove were also consumed. 85

Bishop Schneider

Bishop Schneider tells us that the way we see Communion distributed in the hand today was actually introduced by the Calvinists in the 17th century! ... the original protestant reformers. This involves taking it with our fingers and putting it into our own mouths. Schneider calls it a form of self-communication… and compares it to how one would eat common food. His Excellency then goes into the early Church Fathers, and what they had to say on the matter. St. Augustine warns us that we need to adore the Lord in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar before we receive Him, and if we don’t, we’re committing sin. A phrase attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem says explicitly “Do not stretch out your hands, but, bowing low in a posture of worship and reverence…” St. John Chrysostom said we should imitate the Magi, and how they approached Our Lord in the manger with reverential fear: “For they indeed when they saw Him but in a manger, and in a hut, and no such thing was in sight as you behold now, drew nigh with great awe. But you behold Him not in a manger but on the altar.” As Bishop Schneider points out in his article, the spiritual progress of the church can be measured by the reverence and devotion towards the Sacrament of the Altar. If we hope to turn things around in this current crisis of faith in the church, changing the way we receive Our Lord should be the first place we start. God Love you. I'm Michael Voris

St. John Chrysostom

Consilium

Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy... o silium for short

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Index

Find Term

DOMINICAE CENAE ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP OF THE EUCHARIST JOHN PAUL II Dominicae Cenae is divided into four major sections:  1. THE EUCHARISTIC MYSTERY IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE PRIEST 1. Eucharist and Priesthood 2. Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery 3. Eucharist and Church 4. Eucharist and Charity 5. Eucharist and Neighbor 6. Eucharist and Life 2. THE SACRED CHARACTER OF THE EUCHARIST AND SACRIFICE 1. Sacred Character 2. Sacrifice 3. THE TWO TABLES OF THE LORD AND THE COMMON POSSESSION OF THE CHURCH 1. The Table of the Word of God 2. The Table of the Bread of the Lord 3. A Common Possession of the Church 4. CONCLUSION It was promulgated on February 24, 1980, the Second Sunday of Lent. It is the second letter issued during Pope John Paul II's pontificate.

HUMANAE VITAE ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

SUPREME PONTIFF PAUL VI

July 25, 1969, feast of St. James the Apostle

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/ c_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Index

Find Term

INAESTIMABILE DONUM Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery

James R. Cardinal Knox Prefect Virgilio Noe Assistant Secretary Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine

Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II 17 April

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Indult

(in the Roman Catholic Church) a license granted by the pope author act that the common law of the Church does not sanction.

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

MEMORIALE DOMINI Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Benno Cardinal Gut “Goot”, Prefect A. Bugnini, Secretary Issued on May 29, 1969.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

MYSTERIUM FIDEI

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST SEPTEMBER 3, 1965

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/ c_03091965_mysterium_en.html

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

NCCB National Conference of Catholic Bishops or NCCB for short.

today are called the United States Conference Catholic of Bishops USCCB.

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Periti

Peritus (Latin for "expert") is the title given to Roman Catholic theolog are present to give advice at an ecumenical council.

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Prelates

an ecclesiastic of a high order, as an archbishop, bishop, etc.; a church

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

Profanation noun 1.the act of profaning; desecration; defilement; debasement.

2.having or indicating contempt, irreverence, or disrespect for a divin something sacred 3.not designed or used for religious purposes; secular 4.not initiated into the inner mysteries or sacred rites 5.vulgar, coarse, or blasphemous: profane language

the small particle or our Lord that remain upon the hands and fall of the ground or wiped off onto our pants after reception. the placement of our Lord on to an unclean hand.

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM CONSTITUTION   ON THE SACRED LITURGY SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS  POPE PAUL VI   ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here

USCCB the United States Conference Catholic of Bishops or USCCB.

previously called the NCCB.

Related Glossary Terms Drag related terms here