Posted on 12/01/2009 12:31:58 PM PST by Pyro7480
The Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, has just suspended all activities of the Latin Mass communities in Calgary and Medicine Hat due to a pseudo-scientific and anti-Canonical order mandating the non-reception of the Eucharist on the tongue due to concerns related to the transmission of the Influenza A (H1N1) virus.
We had known about the matter for days, but had waited for some official words from the FSSP priests who serve those communities. However, since the entire matter has now been made public, we post the contents of the e-mail messages related to the affair. (A reader sent the e-mail exchange directly to us, but it was first made available in a web-based forum.)
Are you sick and tired of this kind of clerical abuse? Mail the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, make your protest known, wherever you may live around the world. We too are sick and tired of unwarranted episcopal tyranny, the despotism of those "liberal" or "conservative" bishops who use any excuse to persecute us: they swallow entire "Modern" elephants, yet choke on Latin mosquitoes. Or viruses...
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
>>I said nothing about receiving from the chalice.<<
Dear sitetest
Because I was responding to you AND Mrs Don-o.
Did he leave reception from the cup? No restriction on that?
I learned on Barney not to share a cup. Sheesh.
You quoted me, not someone else. Your reference to the chalice was in response to my post, in response to my words that you cited. As well, the post to which I was responding mentioned nothing about reception from the chalice, either.
It was irrelevant to mention anything about reception of the chalice, but could easily give rise to the inference that somehow I'd at some time said that I receive under both species, an inference that I would not want drawn.
sitetest
You’re reading a lot into my post and personalizing my words.
I responded to you in the first line. I then expounded on the thought and added my own disdain. All in different paragraphs, meaning different thoughts.
If you are interpreting it any differently, I would say that you are reading it wrong.
I have no idea what you might be thinking, I can only read the words that you write. I believe that what you wrote (not what you may or may not be thinking) could give rise to a false inference, and not one I would care to have made.
I merely wished to make it crystal clear that I said nothing about receiving from the chalice, nor do I engage in that practice. It is a point of importance for me, as the Church instituted the practice of abstaining from the chalice to uphold and reinforce Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of the Blessed Sacrament.
sitetest
Well, understand that when a person starts a new paragraph, it’s a new idea. We just went throught a unit on this with my nine-year-old.
If you’d like to be offended by the idea at the bottom of my post, have at it. However I didn’t say you said anything about receiving from a cup. Apparently you want to make a point.
Okay, fine with me. Have a good time. Night!
These bishops will do anything they think will hamper the Latin Mass. Sometimes they have to be a little creative, but they’re like Obama, they can take any event and twist it to their purposes.
Isn’t THAT the truth.
Suspend the handshake of peace, drop the cup, bleach the holy water, then talk to me about one parish with one TLM.
*shakes head*
Nothing very creative about bullying priests and people by issuing orders that violate Church liturgical law.
Masses offered under illicit guidelines are de facto illicit.
Shame on this false shepherd and his ilk.
Time for his sheep to refuse to be shorn when the offertory basket is passed.
After all, they might get swine flu from handling germ laden money.
“Well, understand that when a person starts a new paragraph, it’s a new idea.”
The paragraphs in a single written work, like an essay, or a post, although they express new ideas, they express related ideas. Paragraphs should flow one to another. Each may elucidate something different, but if written properly, they elucidate different things about the same theme. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.
It would be bizarre to string together paragraphs of entirely unrelated paragraphs.
I merely pointed out that your latter comments were irrelevant to anything that I'd said, thus making sure that no one would draw the inference that they were (whether that was your intention or not).
sitetest
The Bishop said that's not good enough. He stated that the severity of this epidemic was not serious enough to eschew physical communion; that the faithful were required to TAKE communion in the hand.
So, in spite of the congregation having come up with a peaceful solution to the non-distribution by tongue, the Bishop said it's not good enough and is forcing people to communion in the hand.
There's more to this story than just non-compliance, or disobedience. There is also the matter of the Bishop thumbing his nose at the CDW which the voice of the Pope in the matters of liturgy. The Pope is the highest legislator in the Church. The Congregation is his right arm. Church liability ranks below this blatant and scandalous action against the office of the Pope.
Wow, I didn’t know that. Good heavens. Any bishop who does that is violating the canonical rights of the faithful. Anti-papal, he is, and a power-freak to boot.
Evidence, please. This sounds like utter nonsense. Roman Catholics are not required to take communion every time they attend mass (last I heard it's required only once a year), so I highly doubt that any bishop is "forcing" them to take communion in any particular form, since there's no basis for forcing them to take it at all. What he may have done is insist that the priests *offer* communion by hand, since otherwise (given the lack of sufficient cause for resorting to only "spiritual communion") these masses would not be including any opportunity for valid communion.
Roman Catholics are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly every single day of the year. To deprive Catholics of this grace out of capricious tyranny is an atrocity. The bishop has no authority whatsoever to deny Communion on the tongue, and he admits that he is contravening the decision of the Roman Congregation. Anyone who obeys a bishop over the Pope should examine his conscience before even ENTERING another church building, let alone attempting to receive the Sacraments.
Participation in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is a source and means of grace even apart from the actual reception of Holy Communion. It has also been long understood that when circumstances prevent one from receiving Holy communion during mass, it is possible to make a spiritual communion that is also a source of grace. Spiritual communion means uniting oneself in prayer with Christ’s sacrifice and worshiping him present in his Body and Blood.
Nevertheless, the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.
Wishing you all the best, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ F. B. Henry Bishop of Calgary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.