Traditional Catholic Latin Mass Catechism #3.1

[mandaloreJCL]

I am a traditional Roman Catholic whose church is run by the institute of Christ the King sovereign Priest. Now, my solution to those wanting communion under both kinds is simple, intinction. This way communion in the hands is not an option, so we nick that sacrilege and at the same time people can have communion under both kinds. It also nicks the need for so called extra ordinary ministers. Personal opinion only.

[Oblationem]

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has understood for longer than a millennium about the Protestant cry for the "cup." The RCC has given Holy Communion only under the species of Bread, partly to counteract the heretical error that Christ is not received whole and entire under either species, partly to prevent the spilling of the Most Precious Blood, partly to reflect an increasing reverence for the Most Precious Blood, and partly to distribute Holy Communion in an orderly way.

[mandaloreJCL]

@Oblationem I know all that. I'm simply offering a solution that i have seen work well in the Eastern Church (Maronites use unleavened bread for this method too so don't mention the east and west difference) Didn't we use to use intinction more commonly as well in like the 2nd or seventh century? I know it isn't forbidden today but it has strict guidelines, self intinction is a no no. I can see where it is a problem if the priest isn't scrupulous.

[Oblationem]

If a priest is using intinction, you can figure that he is not scrupulous; forget about intinction. Novus Ordos slobber over the Protestant idea of drinking from the cup. Moreover many Novus Ordos are forgetting about it as well, not because of religious reasons, but because of health reasons. This is not the Eastern Church that allows intinction (by the priest). Traditional Catholics already have the solution taken in the Host, Body and Blood. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

[mandaloreJCL]

@Oblationem I agree with you. But if people are going to complain about not being able to receive both species, then i'm trying to offer a solution that can work. That's all. I'm not a novus ordo fan at all that's why i go to a church run by the institute of Christ the king, but i'm not going to go society of st. pius and split from Rome. I wish the after math of the 2nd vatican council had left the mass alone and simply educate ppl about it. I love it bc i studied it then came to it

[Oblationem]

It’s not your place to offer a solution, the matter has been settled, get over it.

It’s true, the SSPX has not (as of yet) sold-out to the Novus Ordo sect as the Institute of Christ the King (ICK) has. You say you’re not an Novus Ordo fan yet ICK priests accept the Novus Ordo Mass and if requested must say the New Novus Ordo Protestant Mass. The ICK is simply Roman Protestant.

[mandaloreJCL]

@Oblationem do you seriously consider schism to be a solution?

[Oblationem]

@mandaloreJCL

I consider ‘Tradition’ as taught by the Church for over 2,000 years to be the solution, not a new catechism, new canon laws, new sacraments, new mass (small m). By their fruits you shall know them eh?

[mandaloreJCL]

@Oblationem ok, u don't like big change. Let's run with that, do you accept the filioque in the Nicene creed? Sometimes developments are necessary. One thing good that can come from this new mass is that people will realize how much they want to return to the old ones. Idk f you noticed, the Pope has been slowly putting the irreverence into check, e.g. placing a crucifix & candles on the altar even when facing the people, he has done it ad orientem too, plus removing potential

[mandaloreJCL]

@mandaloreJCL part2: obstacles for priests to be able to celebrate the TLM whenever they want.the new translation to properly catechize ppl He's moving slowly and precisely in order to prevent further schisms. The obj is to make the NO mass more & more reverent, that transitioning back to the TLM won't be a problem. The decisive point will be when the people, who have not been properly trained, are given that understanding which will bring them to wanting it back.

[Oblationem]

1.

Jesus’ saying of: by their fruits you will know them cuts both ways. So If B16 has made some moves towards the truth and tradition one has to give him credit for it. I believe the Vatican II game of one step forward and two steps backwards is being played. The solution is for those in power to let go of their egos and to come back to what has always been the truth. I personally don’t believe B16 steps/moves to be in earnest because of the (facts) of his non-Catholic positions…

[Oblationem]

2.

Heresies of Benedict XVI:

Praying like Muslims toward Mecca. B16’s book, “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, the Jews still wait for the coming of the Messiah. B16 teaches that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t need to be converted. B16 denies that the Papacy was even held in the first millennium and tells us that why we cannot bind the schismatics to believe in the Papacy. Much more...

[mandaloreJCL]

@Oblationem Your 1st accusations, i can't challenge cause i haven't read the book but the last 2 i believe i can. 1. If what you are saying is true, then why does he seem to always be meeting with some schismatic group to discuss full communion? You can find lots of videos of this on youtube. Ill send u one. 2 Are you sure you're quoting him right? He might be saying the form of the papacy as it is today was not the same as it was in the 1st millennium meaning ldrship role changed

[Oblationem]

3.

B16 praised the overturning of the excommunication against the “Orthodox” – and therefore denied Vatican 1. What this means is that B16 along with Paul VI and JP2 have attempted to overturn the Papacy as a dogma. The Papacy that you are trying to defend, they are tearing down. – Akin to Obama that will say or do anything to get re-elected, the New Church that is so deep into their error will say or do anything for Ecumenism. What about the First Commandment? Much much more…

[bmaloy42]

You see and examen the bark on the tree but you fail to see the Tree! If the church has ok'ed receiving in the hand then it is not a sacrilege, you over step your authority but that has been the whole problem with the Society of St Pious has it. It is not obedience if you only obey when you want to.

[Oblationem]

@bmaloy42

Your bark is only about 40 years old. We look at the meat of the tree that is over 2,000 years old. Pope Benedict said he would no longer give communion in the hand, but on November 7, 2010, in front of God and man with the cameras rolling, he publicly handed the Novus Ordo cookie in the hand to the Queen of Spain. Who is superficial? Superficial means near the surface as your 40 year old bark…

[MsLucky443]

Yes, The sacrifice of the mass, Eucharist is the body of Christ!!!! Let us be reverent.

We have the true teaching, People must learn their faith. Please also go to Eucharisic Adoration in silence and pray. You can feel Christ's love for you.

[guayaquil]

I am a catholic and I love my churh, but let me say something receive the Jesus's body in the hand is not a sacrilegio, Eucharistic is not adoration, Eucharistic is a food!!!!! and Jesus give the bread with the hands to other hands never puts in the mouth to the apostoles!!!!!

[Oblationem]

"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament,

nothing touches It but what is consecrated"

St. Thomas Aquinas

[JKB449]

@guayaquil In the Hand is A Sacrilegio, Father Cooper is right. SSPX will save the Church.

I will pray for you

[TrueRomanCatholic]

God Bless Father Cooper for stating Truth!

How pursuaded i am to just not attend my Parish Mass anymore. However i must attend some Mass, we have no traditional Mass anymore.

Luckily i have a vocation to the Traditional Priesthood. Please pray for me ^_^

[baldwalrus7]

Is he correct about St. John Chrysostom? I have read this statement from St. Cyril: "Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss?" Same description of it as "gold-dust". Was it really John?

[PilgrimToChrist]

In the Anglican parish I attended, the Eucharistic portion was very solemn, ad orientem, Communion kneeling at an altar rail, in the hand but not irreverently, the host was handled by the priest alone, the chalice by acolytes in choir dress, excess hosts or wine must be consumed by the priest (certainly not down the drain as mentioned in the video!)

Catholic Mass -- table in the center, versus populus, Communion standing, Eucharistic ministers in common dress, how could I commune like this?

[east02west]

Receiving The Eucharist standing is not un-Traditional. Alexandrian,Byzantine and Eastern Catholics receive in this manner with arms crossed over their chest. It is very reverent as is kneeling to receive.

[Oblationem]

It is un-traditional in the Roman Catholic Church.

[east02west]

I was responding to the posters response which equated standing as one obstacle to receiving Christ reverently.

There are various Traditions within The Church pertaining to how Christ is to be received in The Sacrament of the Eucharist. In the Roman/Latin Rite kneeling may be Traditional, but that does not mean that standing is not for the remainder of the other Ritual Churches which are equally Catholic.

[east02west]

The Tridentine Liturgy is that of Rome and thus has its own particular Traditions. Roman Rite should not be synonymous with Latin Rite as the latter refers to the collective Latin language Liturgies of The West (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.).

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Those are the four markers of The Church. The Church is composed of various Traditions (Roman Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Syro Malabar Catholic, Melkite Catholic etc. .

[PilgrimToChrist]

I am in the process of moving from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

The liturgy is very similar, there is not a whole lot of difference between a 1979 Rite II Episcopal Service and a 1970 NO Catholic Mass. Though I think if we are going to have vernacular Mass, the Anglicans are the place to look for guidance -- they've been doing it for nearly 400 years.

I have not attended a TLM service yet, there is not one near me -- SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS or diocesan -- but I am interested.

[jim50505]

Go to the TLM, you might have to persevere with it for a while. It will be completely new to you, but it's really worthwhile. I started attending last year and it took a while to get used to the silence but now I love it. I would never go to the novus ordo again, there is just not the same reverence as at the TLM. I hope you at least give it a try. Good luck.

[SourCreamsicle]

Very nice sermon! Although I do not and will not attend Holy Mass with the SSPX, they have made significant contributions to the cause of a return to traditional orthodoxy which must be acknowledged. I pray for a complete regularization of their situation soon, then maybe I will visit one of their chapels.

[Oblationem]

To reply to your comments about not attending a SSPX Mass I want to reply likewise that:

I do not attend a Novus Ordo mass nor will I ever attend even if there is reconciliation because it is still a Protestantnized mass, which has done nothing but deconstruct the dogmas of the Catholic Church. You had a chance to fight for the True Faith but chose to sit on your self-righteous butt, no need to attend after any regularization. I chose to be in the company of real-Catholic men, warriors.

[SourCreamsicle]

Neither do I attend Novus Ordo Mass. I attend Holy Mass in the traditional form at a chapel recognized by the diocese in which I live, and have ever since I came to tradition.

As a "real-Catholic" man, your charity is apparent.

[Oblationem]

Of course, you are correct. I was overly harsh and my apologies. You were and are being faithful to the Church in the way that you know how and you should be congratulated.

Mea Culpa.

[SourCreamsicle]

No worries, and perhaps my original comment was a bit antagonistic anyway, and so for that I apologize.

In any case, thanks a lot for all the videos you upload, they are excellent.

[XavierRynne]

The Novus Ordo New Rite of Holy Orders of 1967 (PP6) invalidates ordination. See Fr. Coomaraswamy, "The Problems With The Other Sacraments." All seminarians ordained by Abp. Lefebvre remain validly ordained. However, those of "secondary" descent from Lefebvre, are not ordained at all. Only Baptism and Holy Matrimony remains in the SSPX. Bishops descending from valid bishops have no mandate from a valid pope, and therefore their elevation to bishop has no juridical power or authority.

[Oblationem]

The Pope thinks that the priestly orders of (all) the SSPX priests are valid.

[PilgrimToChrist]

but illicit.

[Oblationem]

No, because the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction.

[XavierRynne]

The Sources of Catholic Dogma do not support his, ahem, "opinion." Ordaining is not subject to opinion, but to what the Doctors of the Church have come to a consensus on, what tradition tells them, the Early Fathers. Bishops require a papal mandate to consecrate more bishops.  Sacerdotal orders of the Anglicans were valid for 300 years until they published their rite & it was found "revised." . Then Leo XIII excommunicated the lot of them. It is all about the valid Rite.

[realcatholic365]

Is the SSPX part of the catholic church or a seperate donomonation?

[Oblationem]

The SSPX is the light that keeps the True Faith burning.

[CommieThreat]

I think they are asking if you the SSPX are associated with Rome and the "current church"

[zachk1983]

I agree with a lot of his points, but he needs to have more confidence in speaking.

[Oblationem]

More confidence?

[Srhandel]

I am a Catholic and believe the host is a symbol of Christ. this is kind of fanatical, what are you gonna do, what are you gonna do, get hysterical?

[Oblationem]

No, I'm not going to get hysterical; I'm going to pray that you return to the Catholic Church and Her doctrines.

[jesusthroughmary]

If you "believe the host is a symbol of Christ", you're not a Catholic.

[XavierRynne]

What you said is a condemned heresy. The Species is NOT a "symbol" it IS the Body and Blood of Christ in the unbloody species of bread and wine. I would get hysterical, if what is being offered by the novus ordo "priests ordained with invalid holy orders rite" was in ANY WAY the Body and Blood. As it is, an invalid priest is merely going through the motions. His own invalid orders prevent confection and the words of consecration are invalidly altered and no longer confect.

[XavierRynne]

Canons of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IV, 1559-1565: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure.., let him be anathema.

This is the highest condemnation the Church uses to excommunicate a member. A member self-excommunicates when he holds heresy.

[LothairLorraine]

As much as some may object to the revised mass and become frustrated at the state of the Church today, you either have to believe that the Holy Spirit is with the Pope or you simply cannot call yourself Catholic.

[Oblationem]

(I am not a priest, and I do not speak for the SSPX)

Your instincts are correct to rally-around the Pope, but it is more correct and important to rally-around and protect the Papacy, not just any one Pope. It's not just that we are frustrated with the state of the Church today (we are) we are fighting for the 'True Faith' as taught always and everywhere. There is no one in the world today that I am aware of that fights harder to protect and defend the Papacy than the SSPX.

[Oblationem]

Personally, I sometimes think, "why even talk to them, they are illegitimate and their 'orders' are in question". I suppose by talking with them the SSPX is not letting them steal the Church and the Papacy. As it has been said, "the SSPX is a bone in their throat that they cannot swallow or spit out...

[XavierRynne]

Canons of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IV, 1559-1565: "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church...ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only..., let him be anathema. What about THIS pope, Lothair? You don't want to hold with a true pope? And you call yourself catholic.

[HoneyDogW]

I looked in my catechism and I don't see anything like what you say. If you are openly going against the Magisterium of the Church then you are a Heretic. If you presume a position of influence such as a priest or bishop and espouse such a position you are both guilty of heresy and scandal. I will pray for your soul.

[Oblationem]

Not everything about the Catholic Faith is in the Catechism.

Thank you for praying for my soul, but rather pray that the Novus Ordo will soon return to the Catholic Faith. I am not a heretic nor do I associate with heretics. If you want to call me something, call me disobedient from necessity. It is the Novus Ordo Protestantzied Church that preaches heresy. If you don't like being called a Roman Protestant, get yourself to a Traditional Catholic Latin Mass.

[HoneyDogW]

I attend a Latin Mass on occasion. It is a wonderful liturgy. But the Novus Ordo, when done properly, is also a wonderful liturgy. Just because some bad priests allow their congregation to act and dress in a less than respectable manner doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the Mass. It means the priest is lazy.

[Oblationem]

When a Novus Ordo Mass is done properly, with no nonsense and everyone is trying to do his or her best, this is what you still have: 

A Mass constructed by a known Mason, and advised by six Protestants.

A Mass that is structured as a Memorial meal, rather than a sacrifice.

The Altar becomes a table.

Priestly ordination doubtful, ordained to preside, not to offer sacrifice. There is a completely different rite of ordination.

A danger to the Faith.

[Oblationem]

(I am simply a layman) trying to defend the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Even the Vatican has not accused the SSPX or it's followers of being heretics. I think the reason Rome has such a problem with the SSPX is that, the SSPX keeps holding their feet to the fire of Scripture and Tradition.

[XavierRynne]

Which catechism did you say? Are you aware that the doctrinal changes are reflected in the catechism? That is the last place to go. Check the 1955 Enchiridion Symbolorum, which contains ALL THE DOCTRINES of the True Catholic Church--before the Vatican II innovators altered them.

[Oblationem]

Bind and loose? The Arian heretics said the same thing in their day.

No! It wasn't in the hand in St. Cyril's time, didn't you read part #5 where it says, scholars question the authenticity of that text. Some think it was an interpolation.

However, I suppose one could receive in the hand, as the Novus Ordo was devised by a known Mason and advised by six Protestants. It is simply not a Catholic Mass anyway. Today, you may call yourselves, "Roman Protestants."

[HoneyDogW]

I don't care what you want to call me. I will adhere to the directives of the Magisterium. If you do not want to, you don't have to, but don't go around thinking you are Catholic.

[Oblationem]

I am a Catholic layman in good standing, who speaks for himself.

This is what the new Magisterium and VII has done.

(Ordinations)

At the end of VII in 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood in the USA. In 2002 that number was 450, a decline of 350 percent.

(Seminarians)

Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 -- a 90 percent decrease. A 90 percent decrease, a 90 percent decrease, wake up!

[HoneyDogW]

And the rise of secular culture has nothing to do with this right?

[Oblationem]

Well... it probably had an influence, maybe a big influence. But anyway you want to cut it Vatican II was/is not Catholic. The Church is supposed to stand as a sign of contradiction against the secular culture, not cave-in to it. Many Protestants who disagreed with Catholics still respected us, but I think not so many today? You can start changing all that next Sunday by receiving communion on the tongue kneeling. Come on, make me smile, make God smile:)

[XSC3]

So the Church is free to bind and loose as it sees fit. In Cyril's time it was in the hand, in the 7th century it was on the tongue, and now it can be either way. A faithful priest will honor both. If you feel more comfortable taking it only on the tongue, do so, but don't be offended by others who choose the other approved way.

[MsPee2000]

From St. Cyril, a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH. AD 350

"In approaching, therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hallowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the amen. Then, after cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it."

(not a sacrilege!)

[Oblationem]

Part #1

"... the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths." The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant..."

[Oblationem]

Part #2

"Of course, the promoters of "Communion in the hand" generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil."

[Oblationem]

Part #3

"Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: "Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen."

[Oblationem]

Part #4

"There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: "Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them." This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?)"

[Oblationem]

Part#5

"Recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint's successor who wrote it."

[Oblationem]

Part#6

"It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content."

[Oblationem]

Part#7 (End)

"And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century..."

All of the above quotes from: Jude A. Huntz

Communion in the Hand -- Homelitic & Pastrol Review -- March 1997

[Oblationem]

Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch it. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist" (Dominicae Cenae, 11).