By now you're getting the picture. Things aren't always what they seem and in the case of the General Instructions for the Roman Missal you can see all of the holes in it through clever manipulation of terminology that masquerades their real motives in demystifying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The paragraph I will cover today is an ideal example of how they have pulled the wool over almost everyone's eyes in respect to Holy Communion in the hands and receiving under both species.
Prior to Vatican II, the only ones to touch the consecrated Host were the priests. NO ONE else dared touch the Sacred. This was a custom handed down from the time of the Holy of Holies in the Ark of the Covenant. God did not say "it's okay to touch Me now." He did not say, "Why not 'hand' Me down and treat me just like anything else you would consume." No, it was man who has demeaned the Jesus Christ, truly present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in every particle of the bread, every drop of the wine; transubstantiated on the Altar - not the 'table' which gives rise to the concept of 'meal' supplanting sacrificial nature of the Holy Mass. Through nearly 2 millenniums this "Holy of Holies" has been treated with the utmost reverence until...
...Until the abomination of Extraordinary Ministers after Vatican II which have evolved into the term "Eucharistic Ministers" and have multiplied in every parish, at every Novus Ordo Mass like rabbits in the spring. The majority of these have been women, in a not-so clandestine attempt to inflict in the mindset of the masses that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have 'women priests.' The more the rules are relaxed, the more God is lower-cased. And the more they de-emphasize the importance of the Council of Trent doctrines as not applicable today, the more the road is paved for a total wreckovation of holy mother the Church.
Paragraph 14 of GIRM reads:
"Moved by the same spirit of pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of Eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part."
Comment and Analysis:
Do you believe this? "No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of Eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone." There are plenty of liturgists and theologians and priests and "pastoral associates" who do indeed challenge the doctrinal principles on the completeness of Eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. Articles abound in so-called liturgical and theological journals of the necessity of receiving under both kinds. And many are the parishes where the faithful are browbeaten into doing so.
Furthermore, the practice of Holy Communion under both kinds, which is not the tradition of the Roman Rite, has been encouraged by liturgists around the world as a means of justifying the necessity of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
This has been done so as to blur the distinctions between the priesthood of the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood all of the faithful have by means of their baptism. Thus, there has been the clericalization of the laity and the laicization of the clergy. This is nothing other than Rousseauean egalitarianism.
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
Tomorrow: Part Nine: Change for the sake of change.
For past columns in The DAILY CATHOLIC by Dr. Droleskey, see Archives